Superfund Record of Decision: MW Manufacturing, PA


           United States ,        Office of
           Environmental Protection   Emergency and
           Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-92/153
June. 1992
SEPA   Superfund
          Record of Decision:
           MW Manufacturing, PA

-------
                                         NOTICE

The appendices fisted in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.

-------
.0272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
RB>ORTNO.
EPA/ROD/R03-92/153
3. Rec^lenrs rtcceiilenNo.
4. Title and SubODe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
MW Manufacturing, PA
Subsequent Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
06/30/92
7. Author^*)
8. Pm (uniting OmaiUaaen Rapt. No.
a. Performing Oi^aMaeon Name and Address
10. ProlectrTaskSWeTkUnnNo.
11. Coraract(C)orGram&nd Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-92/153
MW Manufacturing, PA
Subsequent Remedial Action - Final

Abstract (continued)

the site has been divided into three OUs to address cleanup of all contaminated media. A
1989 ROD (OU1) addressed the carbon waste pile by excavating the carbon waste pile and
incinerating the waste offsite. A 1990 ROD (OU2) addressed treating the fluff waste,
contaminated soils drums, tanks, and the lagoon. This ROD (OD3) addresses the
contamination of the groundwater and the adjacent wetland areas as the final remedial
action at the site. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including PCE and TCE; and other organics, including halogenated aliphatics.

The selected remedial action for this site includes constructing an alternate water
supply system for present and future, affected residences; extracting and treating ground
water using chemical precipitation, air stripping, and carbon adsorption, followed by
discharge to Mauses Creek and/or the Susquehanna River. The air emissions residues from
the air stripper and will be treated using thermal destruction. Residual carbon waste
will be sent off site for disposal. A monitoring .program will be implemented to analyze
ground water samples and monitor the progress of the treatment alternatives. If it is
determined by EPA and the state that certain portions of the aquifer cannot be restored
to background levels, the ROD -specifies modification of the selected remedy, including
engineering controls, physical barriers or long-term pumping to contain contamination;
institutional controls to limit access; and waiver of chemical-specific ARARs for
portions of the aquifer where further contaminant reduction is impracticable. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $37,402,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $1,568,000 for 30 years annually plus $20,000 every 5 years.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based
on state standards, SDWA MCLs and MCLGs CWA, Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, and
background levels. The clean-up goals will attain background concentrations that will be
determined during the remedial design. In the event that the background concentration of
the contaminant is not detected, the most stringent chemical-specific ground water
clean-up goal will be met.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
OPERABLE UNIT THREE
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION

MW Manufacturing Site
Montour County, Pennsylvania

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the MW Manufacturing Site in Valley Township, Montour County,
Pennsylvania (the "Site"), developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and is consistent, to the
extent practicable, with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.

The information supporting this remedial action is contained in
the Administrative Record for the Site.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selected
remedy.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record Of Decision (ROD), will present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare
or the environment.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

This Operable Unit is the final action of three operable units
for the Site. Operable Unit One at the Site remediated the
carbon waste pile as a focused remedial action. Operable Unit
Two (currently in the Remedial Design phase) addresses
remediation of the fluff waste, the contaminated soils, drums,
tanks, and the onsite lagoon. Operable Unit Three addresses the
threat remaining at the Site by restoring the contaminated ground
water to background levels and providing an alternative water
source toaffected area properties. The major components of the
selected remedy include:

• Provide a public water supply to affected properties;

• Construct and operate a ground water extraction and
treatment system. The process option includes air
stripping, carbon adsorption, precipitation,
sedimentation, filtration, and thermal destruction for
emission control. However, other process options (such
as oxidation) could be considered during the remedial
design;

• Discharge of the treated ground water to Mauses Creek
and/or the Susquehanna River;

• Dispose the hazardous waste residuals from the
treatment system off-site at hazardous waste disposal
facilities or a residual waste facility as appropriate;
and

• Provide periodic ground water monitoring during and
after completion of the remediation
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
-------
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the Remedial Action
and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions
and treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum
extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume as a principal element.

Because some contaminated ground water may remain at the Site,
the 5 year site reviews will apply to this action, as required by
Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection to human health
and the environment.
Edwin B. Erickson Dated
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region III
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT THREE
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The 15 acre MW Manufacturing Superfund Site is located in Montour
County, Pennsylvania 2 miles north of Danville, 700 feet west of
State Route 54, and about 1/2 mile south of Interstate 80
(the "Site") (see Figure 1 for the Site location map). The Site
is located on the Riverside USGS quadrangle map. The
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) maintains a
storage area immediately north of the Site. Farmlands and wooded
lots are adjacent to the Site on the west and south. Mauses
Creek flows in a southerly direction past the Site on the east
side of Route 54.

Mausdale, a residential area with approximately 24 homes, is
located approximately 1/4 mile southeast of the Site and Danville
(estimated population 5,200) is located 2 miles south. At the
intersection of Routes 54 and 1-80 there are a number of private
residences, three motels, two gas stations and several
restaurants. These properties, as well as a Head Start School
located just north of the PennDOT storage area, rely upon private
groundwater wells for drinking water.

On September 6, 1984, after evaluating the Site, the EPA
determined an overall Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) score of
46.44 based on a 79.59 groundwater score and a 10.91 surface
water score. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities
List ("NPL") on October 1, 1984 and was placed on the NPL on June
10, 1986.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The MW Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Nivel Corporation,
began operations in 1966. The MW Manufacturing Company was
engaged in copper recovery from scrap wire, using both mechanical
and chemical processes from 1969 to 1972. During this time, the
mechanical process generated the largest volume of waste (the
fluff material that consists of insulating materials), and the
chemical process generated a waste containing high concentrations
of organic compounds (the carbon waste). On November 22, 1972,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued an order to
MW Manufacturing Company to submit a plan to remove the fluff
pile and remove contaminated water within 90 days. In 1973,
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

Nivel Corporation filed for bankruptcy in U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia National Bank
foreclosed the property and held the property until 1976.
Warehouse 81, a limited partnership, acquired the property in
1976. From June 1982 to October 1983, Warehouse 81 conducted a
mechanical recovery process to separate and salvage copper,
plastic, and paper. Warehouse 81 is no longer active in the
secondary recovery of copper from fluff.

A potentially responsible party (PRP) search was conducted for
the Site, but little information was obtained. The previous
owners and operators of the Site have gone out of business and
records of generators, transporters and Site operations were not
available.

In February 1987, a removal consent order was signed by EPA and
the current owners of the Site, Michael G. Sabia and Michael G.
Sabia, Jr. doing business as Warehouse 81 Limited Partnership, to
supply water to the person living on Site and to keep records of
the water supply for 5 years. On February 8, 1989, a special
notice letter was sent to Michael G. Sabia and Michael G.
Sabia, Jr. to perform a RI/FS for operable units one and two, but
they did not agree to perform the studies. A special notice
letter for the RD/RA for operable unit one was sent to Warehouse
81 on March 6, 1989; Warehouse 81 again declined to participate.

Additional PRP investigation in 1992 identified records that led
to AT&T as a potential responsible party. A general notice letter
was sent to AT&T on May 19, 1992.

Table 1 provides a history of Site activities and violations
cited against the various owners of the Site.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Most of the residents who were interviewed in the Danville and
Valley Township areas said that they first learned about the
problem at the MW Manufacturing Site through an EPA news release
in the local papers in March 1986. In 1985, the EPA Field
Investigation Team and Pennsylvania Department Environmental
Resources (PADER) conducted joint sampling of the residential
wells near the Site and discovered elevated lead concentrations
in a Head Start School. Upon recommendations from the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA supplied the
Head Start School with bottled water and conducted additional
sampling. In addition, EPA hosted a public meeting on
March 11, 1986, to discuss the groundwater situation with
officials and parents. Approximately 50 people attended the

- 2 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

meeting. EPA supplied the school with bottled water until later
samples revealed levels below the action levels for lead in the
well water. The original levels have never been observed since
then. EPA believes that any lead in the original sample may have
been from lead solder in the plumbing. All later samples, taken
after the water had been run for a few minutes to flush the
lines, have not shown any lead above the action level (15 jig/L) .

On April 16, 1992 , EPA released the Focused Feasibility Study
("FS") and Proposed Plan ("PP") for Operable Unit ("OU") Three
(ground water contamination) to the public for comment. Both
documents were placed in the administrative record file
maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region III and at the
information repository set up at the Thomas Beaver Library in
Danville, PA. EPA also placed an advertisement in three local
newspapers announcing the availability of these documents, and
invited the public to comment on the Proposed Plan between April
16 and May 16, 1992. The advertisement appeared in the Danville
News, Danville Item and Press Enterprise on April 16, 1992.
Subsequently, after receiving a timely request to extend the
comment period, EPA extended the comment period for an additional
30 days. Notice of this extension was advertised in the Press
Enterprise and Danville News on May 29, 1992.

EPA held a public meeting on May 7, 1992 at the Montour County
Court House to present its proposed plan to remediate the ground
water contamination. Approximately 60 people attended the public
meeting, including local residents, officials representing the
township, borough and county, representatives from PADER, and the
media. Comments received during the public comment period,
including those expressed at the public meeting, are addressed in
the Responsiveness Summary at the end of this document.

EPA has thus met the public participation requirements of
Sections 113 (k) (2) (b) (i-v) and 117 of CERCLA.
IV. SCOPE AMD ROT.R OF THIS OPERABT.TC UNIT

As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the MW
Manufacturing Site are complex. As a result, EPA organized the
work into three operable units (OUs) .

• OU One — Carbon waste

• OU Two — Fluff waste, contaminated soils, drums,
tanks, and lagoon

• OU Three — Contamination of ground water
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

EPA already selected remedies for OU One in a ROD signed on
March 31, 1989 and OU Two in a ROD signed on June 29, 1990.
Implementation of the ROD for OU One was completed in March of
1992 and OU Two is in the Remedial Design Phase. Actual
construction for OU Two is planned to begin in Fall of 1993.
Remediation of these OUs is being implemented to protect public
health and the environment by preventing direct contact with
contaminated waste and reducing the further migration of
contaminants into the ground water.

The OU Three, the subject of this ROD, addresses the
contamination of the ground water and the wetland areas adjacent
to the Site. Potential ingestion of ground water poses the
principal risk to human health being addressed by OU Three
because EPA's acceptable risk range is exceeded and
concentrations are greater than the Maximum Contaminant Levels
("MCLS") for ground water. The purpose of this response is to
prevent current or future exposure to the contaminated ground
water, to protect uncontaminated ground water for current and
future use and to restore contaminated ground water for future
use to the remedial action cleanup levels.

V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A. General Overview

The major Site features include several piles of fluff waste
(wire insulation), a lagoon, a small excavated pit in the ground
(the former location of the carbon waste), and a large
manufacturing building and office in which one person is living.
There are also several drums and two storage tanks on the Site.
The Site features are shown in Figure 2. The office water well is
permanently plugged and potable water is supplied from an outside
source.
B. Natural Resources

The natural resources that could be affected by Site
contamination include Mauses Creek, wetlands, and local ground
water. Mauses Creek is a cold-water fishery. It flows into
Mahoning Creek, which is a stocked trout stream. Mahoning Creek
eventually flows into the Susquehanna River, which is a major
source of potable water. The water intake for the Danville Water
Company is upstream of Mahoning Creek. Many local residents and
businesses use private wells for their potable water supply.

There are no known threatened or endangered species in Mauses

- 4 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

Creek or at the Site and no known critical habitats at or in the
vicinity of the Site. However, the area between Washingtonville
Road and Mauses Creek has been designated a wetland by the EPA.
In addition, Mauses Creek supports a abundant fish population,
including chubs, darters, dace, minnows, trout, and bass.

C. Surface Water Hydrogeology

Surface waters and runoff from the MW Manufacturing Site
generally flow in an easterly direction and eventually enter
Mauses Creek. One drainageway originates in the northwestern
corner of the Site and is an open ditch until it reaches the area
near the lagoon. At that point, flow enters an 18-inch-diameter
corrugated metal pipe (CMP). An inlet grate is located in the
northeastern corner of the property, and at that point, the CMP
turns southward. Once the flow passes beneath the Site access
road, it becomes an open ditch again. A second small drainageway
originates south of the main building. These two ditches join
and pass beneath Washingtonville Road via an 18-inch-diameter CMP
culvert. Surface water then flows through a marshy area and into
Mauses Creek, approximately 600 feet east of the Site.

Mauses Creek, located near the Site on the north and east, flows
in a general southeasterly direction to its confluence with
Mahoning Creek, approximately 1/2 mile downstream of the Site.
From this confluence, Mahoning Creek meanders for 3 miles before
entering the Susquehanna River immediately north of the community
of Riverside.

D. Site Hydroaeoloay

The water table at the Site is located within unconsolidated
material above the top of bedrock. Depths to ground water range
from approximately 3 to 23 feet below ground surface throughout
the study area. The standing water in the wetland area east of
the Site is an expression of the water table. All water-level
measurement data was obtained during a period of abnormally low
precipitation, and normal ground water elevations may therefore
be higher than those reported.

Based on the 1988 Remedial Investigation ("RI"), ground water
generally flowed across the Site toward the northeast or east
toward Mauses Creek. However, based on new data from the 1991
RI, ground water flow direction also appears to be toward the
south and southeast. A potentiometric surface map showing
contours and ground water flow directions for the overburden
wells are shown on Figure 3. The overburden, shallow, and
intermediate bedrock maps all appear to have a.similar ground

- 5 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

water flow pattern, with minor variations due to upward gradient
in some wells.

A hydraulic connection was observed between the aquifer zones,
and all the zones act as a single unconfined aquifer. From data
generated during ground water pumping tests, it is evident that
the aquifer is heterogeneous and anisotropic. The bedrock was
found to be moderately to highly fractured. The fracture pattern
varies from one location to another, although generally the
degree of fracturing and number of fractures per foot decreased
with increasing depth below ground surface. The top of bedrock
generally slopes toward the east across the Site while the
bedding planes dip toward the north-northwest.

E. Nature and Extent of Contamination

Sampling and analysis of the ground water, surface water, and
sediment indicate that off-Site media have been affected by
contamination that originated on Site. The results are
summarized below.

The primary contaminants in the ground water are halogenated
aliphatics, although several other chemicals such as phthalate
esters and phenols also were detected less frequently and at
lower concentrations. The most prevalent organic chemicals found
in the ground water are tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene
(TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane. Concentrations were generally found to be
highest in the wells closest to the original source (the former
carbon waste pile) area and decreased with increasing distance
from that source. Several metals are also notable Site-related
contaminants, such as copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and antimony.
Contamination was observed in the deep wells, and in wells
installed on the eastern side of Mauses Creek. A summary of the
organic and inorganic analytical results for the monitoring wells
from the 1991 investigation are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

A contaminant plume that generally is elongated in the west/east
direction was identified during the evaluation of the chemical
analytical results, although gaps in the data include the
southern boundary of the shallow bedrock and overburden plumes
and vertical extension in the deep bedrock. The wells installed
around the Site have defined the approximate lateral extent of
contamination in the eastern and northern directions at the
depths monitored. Data gaps relative to the plume size will be
addressed during the design phase. The approximately horizontal
extent of the ground water contamination is shown in Figure 4.
- 6 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

The 1991 residential well analytical results appear to indicate
that the plume has migrated beneath Mauses Creek. Twelve active
and one abandoned well were sampled in 1991. The locations of
these wells are shown in Figure 5. The analytical results are
summarized in Table 4.

Surface water samples collected from the wetland contain several
of the same volatile organic chemicals that were found in the
ground water. The concentrations of the organics were higher in
the wetland than in Mauses Creek, which is expected to dilute the
discharged ground water. Surface water samples collected
upstream of the Site were free of Site-related volatile organic
chemicals. The organic analytical results for surface water
samples are summarized in Table 5. Surface water inorganic
analytical results are summarized in Table 6.

Sediment samples collected from the wetland generally contained
higher concentrations of insoluble Site contaminants such as
phthalate esters and metals. These data indicate that surface
material on the Site might have been eroded and deposited in the
wetland. The sediments also contained some Site-related volatile
organic chemicals. The organic and inorganic analytical results
are summarized in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.

A sediment sample from each location was also subjected to the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, and the extract was
analyzed for the full Targeted Compound List and Targeted
Analyate List ("TCL/TAL"). These results are summarized in
Table 9. None of these sediment samples would be considered a
hazardous wastes under the regulatory criteria.

F. Contaminant Migration Routes

This section identifies the potential contaminant release
mechanisms and migration routes at the MW Manufacturing Site.
This discussion focuses on the ground water, surface water, and
sediment media that were sampled during the 1991 RI. These
mechanisms were identified through an evaluation of the chemical
analytical data base and known Site characteristics.

The primary groundwater contaminants detected at the Site were
volatile organics, most of which were the halogenated aliphatics.
These chemicals were used in the metal recovery operations at the
facility. Once the carbon waste was disposed on the ground
surface, the high concentrations of organic contaminants acted as
a source. Rainfall leached the soluble components of the waste,
which eventually reached the water table. Once in the ground
water, soluble components of the waste were transported
downgradient.

- 7 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

These organic contaminants are relatively mobile and have low
organic carbon partition coefficients and, therefore, are highly
susceptible to groundwater transport. As described above, the
groundwater regime at the Site consists of one aquifer system
with a varying vertical gradient from the water table surface to
the deep bedrock. In some places (e.g., MW01/02/03 cluster)
there are overall downward groundwater flow gradients. In other
locations (e.g., MW07/08/09 cluster) there is an upward gradient.
A downward gradient will naturally aid in the downward migration
of contamination, as well as the outward migration facilitated by
the change in the potentiometric surface gradient across the
site. Once in the ground water, these dissolved constituents
migrate in dissolved state along with moving water, being
somewhat retarded by the presence of organic carbon in overburden
or bedrock materials which tends to retain some of these
contaminants.

The upward vertical gradient of the ground water below the former
carbon waste pile source area normally would be expected to
inhibit the downward vertical migration of dissolved contaminants
in the groundwater. However, high concentrations of the organic
chemicals found in the source area wells may be indicative of
another contaminant migration mechanism; i.e., the bulk movement
of pure chemical product. The slightly soluble chemical compound
commonly is referred to as non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL). When
the NAPL is heavier than water it is referred to as a dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). The presence of a DNAPL commonly
is suspected when the concentrations of dissolved product reach
approximately 2 to 5 percent of a chemical solubility.

PCE, assumed to be used at the Site, was found at a maximum
concentration that is 22 percent of its solubility and the
possible degradation products of PCE were detected at lower
percentages of solubility. PCE is more dense than water, having
a specific gravity of 1.63. These facts lead to the conclusion
that a DNAPL may be present at the Site. DNAPLs may have moved
downward through the soil to the water table, and thence downward
without being affected by the upward ground water flow. These
DNAPLs may also partially explain the observation of increasing
concentrations of particular contaminants with increasing depth.
The sample results led EPA to believe that DNAPLs are present at
the Site.

Contamination in wells located outside the Plant (The "Plant"
consists of the property on which the MW Manufacturing Company
conducted its business; the boundaries of the Plant are
delineated on the map which is attached as Figure 12) in the
north, south, and east directions, can be traced to source areas
(the "source areas" are areas of disposal of hazardous

- 8 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

substances) at the Plant. In addition, the analytical data
suggests that contamination extends across Mauses Creek and that
the creek may not act as a hydrologic barrier to migration. Low
concentrations of some Site-related organic chemicals were also
detected in several residential/business wells located north of
the Plant. A residential well at the southeastern boundary of
the Site showed contamination.

Contaminated ground water may also be discharging in the wetland
area on the west side of Mauses Creek. Site-related contaminants
were detected in standing water collected from the wetland area
and the sediments in the wetland drainageways including volatile
organics, phthalate esters, and metals. The presence of these
contaminants is believed to be related to erosion from surface
materials on Site and from on-Site drainage ditches to culverts
beneath Washingtonville Road.

EPA has concluded that there is also some discharge of
contaminated ground water to Mauses Creek ("the Creek"), as
evidenced by the detections of TCE and 1,2-dichloroethene in the
Creek in the vicinity of the Site. These chemicals were not
detected in the Creek upstream of the Site.

VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
This section of the ROD summarizes the results of the risk
assessment. The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for
taking action and indicates the exposure pathways that need to be
addressed by remedial action. It also details the risks related
to the no-action scenario.

The first task in the risk assessment was to select chemicals of
concern for each medium under investigation. The list was based
on chemical toxicity characteristics, the occurrence and
distribution of the chemical in the medium, potential exposure
routes, and contaminant migration characteristics.

For the monitoring wells, from which potential future residential
exposures were evaluated, the chemical list included a wide
variety of volatile organic chemicals (mostly halogenated
aliphatics and monocyclic aromatics), base neutral extractable
compounds (phthalate esters), acid-extractable compounds
(phenols) and metals. Toxic compounds detected in the
residential wells were retained for public health evaluation.
Separate lists of chemicals of concern were developed for the
surface water of Mauses Creek, the sediment of Mauses Creek and

- 9 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

the wetland sediment. Small areas of standing water in the
wetland were considered insignificant for potential human
exposures.

As described above, the Site is currently surrounded by
residential areas, farmland, and small businesses. In addition,
there is a Head Start School located a few hundred feet north of
the plant. Specific receptors were considered during the risk
assessment process. At present, one abandoned residential well
and a business well are identified in the immediate plume area. A
few of the outlying domestic and business wells exhibited
sporadic occurrences of some volatile organics, as well as lead
which may not be related to the Site.

A separate risk assessment was performed for each existing
domestic or business well that was sampled. These assessments
considered whether the well served a home (both children and
adult receptors exposed via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact) or a business (ingestion and dermal contact only using
employment/student characteristics to define receptors). Direct
exposures to surface water and sediment, were evaluated for
adolescents only. As far as potential exposures to contaminated
groundwater identified in a plume extending eastward from the
site, both adults and children were seen as potential receptors
should a new well be installed for residential use in the
downgradient area of the plume.

In addition, the potential human ingestion of fish caught in
Mauses Creek was also addressed. This exposure route was based
on the observed surface water concentrations and nonspecific
bioconcentration factors to determine contaminant concentrations
in fish tissue. An earlier RI report (1988) addressed the risks
associated with fish ingestion based on actual fish tissue data.

All exposure parameters used at this Site were based on the
current risk assessment guidance from the USEPA (USEPA, December
1989 and March 25, 1991). However, every attempt was made to make
the scenarios more site-specific. These assumptions were
detailed in the RI report to determine chemical-specific intakes
for each chemical and exposure route.

Potential human exposures to the chemicals of concern under the
defined exposure scenarios were then quantified using EPA-
published dose-response parameters. Noncarcinogenic risks are
presented in the form of Hazard Quotients that were determined by
comparing the predicted intake of a chemical to a parameter known
as a Reference Dose, that represents the intake of a chemical
that is not expected to result in any adverse health effects even
in sensitive populations. However, because of the uncertainties

- 10 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

involved in its development (the dose is adjusted by orders of
magnitude for various parameters), the Reference Dose cannot be
used for risk quantitation and it is necessary to know whether
the Hazard Quotient for a chemical exceeds unity (or, in other
words, whether the estimated intake exceeds the Reference Dose).
Individual Hazard Quotients are summed to generate a Hazard Index
that also should not exceed unity.

Carcinogenic risks are provided in the form of dimensionless
probabilities that are based on Cancer Slope Factors (CSF(s). A
CSF generally is derived from animal studies of chemical
toxicity. The high doses administered to laboratory animals are
extrapolated to the low doses generally received by humans in a
linear relationship. The value used in reporting the CSF is the
upper 95 percent confidence limit. The CSF is multiplied by the
predicted intake to result in a unitless expression of an
individual's likelihood of developing cancer as a result of the
defined exposure. The defined exposure assumes an adult receptor
will be exposed to the chemicals of concern through ingestion,
inhalation and dermal exposure over the course of a life time
(with 30 years exposure duration). An incremental cancer risk of
10"6 indicates that the exposed receptor has an additional risk
of one in one million of developing cancer. Again, the risks
associated with multiple chemicals may be added together.

The EPA generally has defined "acceptable" risk range somewhere
between 10"4 and 10"6. However, this level is sometimes modified
by regulatory requirements (that can be more stringent) or more
stringent chemical specific cleanup requirements that are not
based on residual risk.

Each residential and business well at the Site was considered in
a separate risk assessment. The assessments were based on the
maximum detected contaminant concentrations in an effort to
ensure that risks were not underestimated. However, because the
two rounds of sampling that were conducted did not always agree
(i.e., a chemical may have been detected in one sample and not in
the other), this approach is extremely conservative. Exposure to
water from several of the wells resulted in Hazard Indices that
exceeded unity solely because of the presence of lead. However,
in neither case could a continuous "plume" of lead be drawn from
the Site to these wells because of intervening clean wells.

In addition, exposure to water from four potable wells was found
to result in carcinogenic risks greater than 10~6. Two of these
wells (both residential or business wells) contained vinyl
chloride at a concentration of about one-half the MCL in one
sampling round. The third well is a now-abandoned well at a
roadside rest stop, and the fourth is an abandoned dug well

- 11 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

immediately adjacent to the Site. With the exception of the
abandoned dug well, all risks were less than 10 . Tables 10, 11
and 12 summarize the risks associated with potable water use from
the residential and business wells.

However, potential exposure to the groundwater in the plume
presents clearly unacceptable risks. The total Hazard Index
exceeds unity and the incremental cancer risk was estimated at 3
x 10~2. The halogenated aliphatics (such as 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, TCE, and vinyl chloride) were the most
significant contributors to this risk.

The risks estimated for potential exposure to adolescents from
surface water and sediment by adolescents were within the
acceptable limits under current EPA guidance. That is, the
Hazard Indices were less than 1.0, and the incremental cancer
risks were 1.5 x 10~6.

The ingestion of fish by adult residents on a routine basis
resulted in estimated risks of 1.3 x 10~5, primarily because of
the presence of PCE in the creek at a concentration of 0.13 mg/L.
In 1988, when actual fish tissue contaminant concentrations were
measured, the risks were found to be unacceptable for long-term
exposure (greater than 10~4) using both the methodologies in
place at that time and using current guidance on the same
concentrations. However, the unacceptable risks were due solely
to the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in one sample at a
very high concentration. However, fish have a very short
lifespan and once the fluff pile is remediated under RD/RA for OU
Two, the influx of contaminated sediment will cease and the risks
are predicted to become acceptable eventually.

An environmental assessment was also performed for Mauses Creek.
The results indicated that while the Creek shows some minor
adverse effects near the wetland discharge point, the downstream
station showed full recovery of all ecological parameters.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the Site presently has some
adverse impact on the Creek. However, as the on-Site fluff pile
and contaminated ground water are remediated, inputs of
contaminated runoff to the wetland and the discharge of
contaminated groundwater to the creek should be eliminated,
thereby resulting in a reduction of contaminants entering these
systems.

Table 13 summarizes the total risks based on media and exposure
route. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the only
medium of concern for this phase of the investigation of the Site
is groundwater.
- 12 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides an understanding of the remedial
alternatives developed for OU Three and each alternatives
components, and compares their effectiveness, implementability,
cost and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Only a summary comparison of the ARARs is
presented in this section. A detailed description of ARARs for
the selected remedy for OU Three is set forth in Sections IX and
X below.
A. Alternative 1: No Action

This alternative is considered in the detailed analysis to
provide a baseline to which the other remedial alternatives can
be compared. This alternative involves taking no action at the
Site to remove, remediate, or contain the contaminated
groundwater. Periodic groundwater monitoring of residential
wells and monitoring wells in the area of potential groundwater
contamination would be conducted to provide information adequate
to trigger independent measures to prevent contact (primarily
ingestion and inhalation) with contaminated groundwater. An
estimated 13 monitoring wells and 5 residential wells would be
sampled periodically. The locations of these wells are shown in
Figure 6. Existing monitoring wells could be used for 11 wells,
thus, it is assumed that only two additional wells outside the
Plant would be required. The exact number and locations for the
monitoring wells would be determined during the Remedial Design
phase. For costing purposes, a quarterly sampling period would
be used for all wells, which would provide a maximum degree of
protection to the public health. Because this alternative would
result in contaminated groundwater remaining on the Site, 5-year
site reviews pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §
9621, would be required to monitor the effectiveness of this
alternative.

Effectiveness

Since no action would be taken to remediate the ground water
under this alternative, the health risks remaining after

- 13 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

implementation of this alternative would be identical to those
presently posed by use of contaminated ground water. For ground
water users residing downgradient of the current extent of
contamination, this alternative would help to identify the
potential or likelihood of future exposure to contaminated
groundwater. With regard to reliability, monitoring is usually
less effective in fractured bedrock than in more homogeneous
formations since contaminants can potentially remain undetected
by migrating beyond the monitoring wells in fractures.

With respect to environmental risks, the contaminants in the
ground water would continue to migrate over time.

This alternative does not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants in the ground water. Over time,
contaminant levels in the present areas of contamination may
gradually decrease through natural dilution, although the current
extent of ground water contamination may spread into
uncontaminated areas.
Implementability

Ground water monitoring is used widely at hazardous waste sites.
Monitoring wells could be readily installed and maintained at the
Site.

Since the only remedial action involved with this alternative is
the installation of monitoring wells and periodic sampling;
protection of workers and the community from exposure to
contaminated materials during remedial actions is not a major
consideration. Monitoring wells could be installed in
approximately 2 weeks once a field crew and equipment are
mobilized.

Compliance with ARARs

For the contaminants of concern, this alternative would not meet
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. § 300, Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCLs) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs), nor the risk-based action levels, all of which are
referenced by the National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 ("NCP"), as appropriate
ground water cleanup criteria, depending on the circumstances of
the Site. This alternative would also not comply with the
Pennsylvania Hazardous Regulations, 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.90-264.100
and in particular, 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.97(i)(j) and 264.100(a)(9)
that require contaminated ground water to be remediated to
background levels.

- 14 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

With respect to location-specific ARARs, this alternative does
not comply with the EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy policy
for a Class 2 aquifer, which is a "To Be Considered" (TBC)-type
requirement.

This alternative would comply with the ground water monitoring
requirements of the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management
Regulation, 25 Pa.Code, Chapter 264. However, this alternative
would not comply with the Pennsylvania Hazardous Regulations, 25
Pa.Code Section 264.100(a), regarding the submission of a ground
water abatement plan to be developed and implemented if ground
water pollution is detected in one or more monitoring wells.

Cost

The present-worth of this alternative is estimated to be
$2,216,000, with a capital cost of $25,000 and an O&M cost of
$139,000 annually plus $20,000 every 5-years. The cost for 5-
year site reviews are included in the O&M and present-worth costs
for this alternative.

B. Alternative 2: Connection to Public Water System

This alternative involves the connection of new water service
lines, mains, hydrants, valves to the Danville Municipal
Authority water mains (near First Street, see Figure 7) to
provide a new water service to certain properties. This
alternative is intended to eliminate the present and future
health risks associated with the use of contaminated groundwater.

This alternative involves installing ductile iron water mains of
approximately 10-inch-diameter and 3/4-inch-diameter polyethylene
service lines with curb box and a water meter and valve for each
connected user. The remedial action does not include the
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the water
supply system once it is operational. Control of the new water
lines shall be transferred to the Danville Municipal Authority as
soon as construction is complete. Therefore, construction
details (i.e., diameter of lines, spacing of fire hydrants, etc.)
must meet the requirements of the Danville Municipal Authority
and local fire codes.

Based on existing and potential risks, the costing of this
alternative assumes that all of the residences and businesses in
the immediate area near the ground water plume would be connected
to the municipal water supply. New water mains and service lines
would be installed to service the Mausdale Community

- 15 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

(approximately 24 homes a quarter mile southeast of the Plant)
and the residences and businesses located north and east of the
Plant (approximately 4 residences and 7 businesses). The exact
size, materials, and location of the water lines and number of
residences/businesses to be connected would be determined during
the Remedial Design Phase.

Effectiveness

Implementation of this alternative would prevent exposure to
contaminated ground water for those residences and businesses
connected with the municipal water supply. This alternative will
not protect uncontaminated ground water, or restore the
contaminated ground water to background levels; nor will it
protect environmental receptors.

Those residents who elect to continue to use their private wells
for nonpotable and nonshowering purposes are not expected to
incur any significant health risk. If some residents use both
wells and public water, the well system must be kept separate of
the public water system to prevent possible cross contamination.
To prevent possible cross contamination and continued
unacceptable human health risks some existing domestic and
business wells in the areas of concern must be sealed. This
could be implemented on an individual voluntary basis.

Implementability

The technologies associated with this alternative are well
established and use common engineering and construction
practices. The effectiveness of the public water supply under
this action, would be monitored by the Danville Municipal
Authority will be monitored and pursuant to the Safe Drinking
Water Act.

This alternative will require the participation of the Danville
Municipal Authority. The water treatment plant currently has
excess capacity (approximately 2 mgd excess) and the authority is
interested in supplying additional communities, so the
implementability of this alternative is good. The construction
of new water mains and service lines would require the
coordination of EPA and the Danville Municipal Authority to

- 16 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

insure that the new construction complies with the design and
construction standards of the Authority. The water main
extension could be constructed within the existing right-of-way
of state and local roads (with the approval of state and local
authorities). No serious obstacles to the implementation of this
alternative are anticipated. Service lines from the water main
to individual residences would not require any easements since
they typically are maintained by the resident, not the water
authority.

This alternative has no apparent occupational or community health
risks associated with implementation. There is a low probability
of construction-type accidents associated with heavy equipment
operation and material handling. Occupational exposure during
construction is not anticipated, but could be readily controlled
using conventional health and safety techniques. Environmental
receptors should not be affected by short-term excavation and
installation activities.

Since the ground water would not be collected and treated under
this alternative, no residuals would be generated. This
alternative could be implemented relatively quick. The estimated
construction time for installation of additional lines in the
community near the Site is approximately 6 months from the
construction initiation.

Compliance with ARARs

Once connected to the Danville Municipal Authority public water
system, the water quality will be regulated by the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Danville Municipal Authority
currently is in compliance with those health based ARARs.

However, this alternative would not comply with the Pennsylvania
Hazardous Regulations, 25 PA. Code §264.90-264.100 and in
particular, 25 PA. Code §§ 264.97(1)(j) and 264.100(a)(9) that
require contaminated ground water to be remediated to background
levels. With respect to location-specific ARARs, this alternative
does not comply with the EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy
Policy for a Class 2 aquifer, which is a "To Be Considered" (TBC)
standard because it does not clean up the ground water plume.

Cost

The present-worth and capital cost of this alternative is
estimated at $1,200,000, since the O&M cost associated with this
alternative would be paid by the users of the system. Typically,
for an average homeowner, O&M would cost approximately $ 36 per
quarter.

- 17 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

C. Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction, Treatment,
Discharge, and Connection to Public Water System

1. Connection to Public Water System

This alternative fully incorporates Alternative 2 to provide
public health protection while other components of Alternative 3
are being designed, constructed, and implemented. The key
features of Alternative 3 include extracting contaminated ground
water, treating the ground water on Site and discharging the
treated ground water to Mauses Creek and/or the Susquehanna
River. This alternative was developed to achieve the background
action levels to comply with the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste
Management Regulations, 25 Pa.Code, Article VII, Chapter 264),
and to eliminate the existing and future threat to residential
wells and uncontaminated ground water.

The conceptual design for the extraction system is shown in
Figure 8. Because the current depth of contamination is
uncertain, a number of assumptions concerning the extent of the
contaminated plume were made in developing this conceptual
design. Additional monitoring wells and pump tests, including
concerning number, locations and depth of wells, screen intervals
and discharge rate, will be required during the remedial design
phase, prior to preparing any final design.

The conceptual design developed for Alternative 3 places
extraction wells along the perimeter and the interior of the
plume and includes pumping at a rate sufficient to extend the
capture zone beyond the plume boundaries in all directions. The
system effectively flushes contaminants from the saturated
portion of the aquifer surrounding the Site by pulling
uncontaminated water from outside of the plume boundary, across
the plume boundaries to the wells. EPA does not anticipate the
need to conduct a treatablitiy study, however, if it is necessary
it will be incorporated into the Remedial Design.
2. Treatment System Component

The following description of the treatment system for
Alternative 3 is only conceptual and other systems could be
considered during the Remedial Design phase. Under Alternative 3,
the contaminated groundwater would be extracted from 10 wells
each pumping at an average rate of 80 gpm for total extraction
rate of 800 gpm. See Figure 9 for the Groundwater Treatment Flow
Diagram. The combined groundwater flow would first enter a cone-
bottom predecantation tank for the separation of any free

- 18 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

contaminants that may be extracted. Free contaminants would be
collected from the bottom of the predecantation tank to a storage
tank and periodically disposed off-site at an EPA approved
facility.

The groundwater would then be subjected to chemical precipitation
and iron removal. The precipitated metal hydroxide sludge will be
separated out in an inclined plate gravity settler. The residual
sludge which is anticipated to be a hazardous waste, will be
dewatered utilizing a filter press and the sludge cake will be
transported away to an off-site RCRA approved landfill.

The volatile organics in the effluent water from the chemical
precipitation unit water will be removed using an air stripper.
Chlorinated volatile (PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC) emissions from the
air stripper are estimated to average about 99 pounds per day,
considerably in excess of the allowable maximum of 15 pounds per
day under "OSWER Directive 9355.0-28, To Be Considered (TCB)
nonenforceable guidelines." Therefore, an emission control
system must be provided. Emissions from the air stripper will be
subjected to a thermal destruction unit to break down all
organics including vinyl chloride. The effluent water from the
air stripper will be subjected to a carbon adsorption system to
remove remaining organic compounds before discharging to Mauses
Creek and\or the Susquehanna River. The spent carbon will be
regenerated off-site at an EPA approved facility. Because the 10-
year, 7-day average minimum flow for Mauses Creek is about
63 gpm, discharge to Mauses Creek may be limited and, therefore,
all or part of the treated groundwater may need to be discharged
to the Susquehanna River. For the purpose of costing, the cost
of discharge of all the treated groundwater to the Susquehanna
River was included as a "worst-case" scenario for this
alternative. During the Remedial design phase, discharge to
Mauses Creek, and/or the Susquehanna River will be considered.

Once the cleanup levels, as further detailed in the performance
standards section below, are measured to be achieved, there may
be some residual contamination remaining in the ground water
because some of the ground water, most of which flows in
fractured bedrock, may not be intercepted by the extraction well
system. In addition, contaminants may exit and/or migrate into
fractures that are not interconnected (i.e., dead-end fractures)
and, as a result, may not be readily extractable. After the
completion of remediation, contaminants may reappear with time.
For this reason, periodic ground water monitoring and 5-year site
reviews pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621(c),
would be required to monitor the effectiveness of this
alternative.
- 19 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
Effectiveness
Alternative 3 would provide a public water supply and is designed
to remove ground water contaminants down to background levels.
As such, this alternative would prevent exposure to ground water
contaminants, protect uncontaminated ground water, and restore
contaminated ground water to background cleanup levels.

Ground water extraction wells, pumps, conveyance systems, and
ground water monitoring are used widely at hazardous waste sites
and are proven technology. There would be minimal risk to workers
and the community associated with implementation of
Alternative 3. Air strippers and carbon adsorption vessels
commonly are used for water and wastewater treatment and are
highly reliable if periodic inspections and maintenance are
pe-r formed.

Air stripping and granular activated carbon adsorption, as
included in this alternative, are irreversible treatment
processes that would reduce the toxicity of the contaminated
ground water through essentially complete removal (99.9 percent
plus) of the volatile chlorinated organic contaminants. Thermal
treatment of air stripping off-gas and activated carbon
regeneration would destroy irreversibly the contaminants removed
in the stripping and adsorption processes. The chemical
precipitation and solids separation processes of this alternative
would remove most of the iron and manganese from the ground
water. About 90 percent of the remaining metals except for
antimony, would be removed by chemical precipitation,
sedimentation, and filtration. The treatment system is not
expected to remove the very low concentrations of acetone
(47 jig/1) and antimony (43.8 ng/1) in extraction water. Because
of its very high water solubility, acetone neither air strips nor
adsorbs on activated carbon in an effective manner and only
responds well to biodegradation. However, biological treatment
of such a low level of contamination is not practical to achieve.
The chemical precipitation process of this alternative would
probably achieve only up to 50 percent removal of the antimony.
However discharge to the Susquehanna River and/or Mauses Creek
would result in a minimum risk via ingestion.

Implementabilitv

The treatment processes included in Alternative 3 are well
demonstrated and readily implementable. Multiple suppliers are
available for each proposed treatment unit.

Operation and maintenance of the groundwater extraction wells and

- 20 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

treatment system would be required on a regular and ongoing
basis. It is anticipated that at least six operators would be
required for the treatment system on an 24-hour-a-day, 5-day-a-
week basis.

During remediation, treatment system operators and the
neighboring community would be protected from air stripping
fugitive emissions by a thermal off-gas treatment system.
Perimeter air monitoring and work area breathing zone monitoring
may be required to verify the effectiveness of the off-gas
treatment system, but this determination cannot be made until the
treatment system is designed. Also during the remediation,
special procedures, including wearing the appropriate protective
clothing, would have to be followed by treatment system operators
for the handling of residuals including spent activated carbon
and filter press cake.

Residuals generated by the treatment process would be limited to
about 3 cubic yards of filter press cake per day and
approximately 10 tons of spent carbon to be regenerated off-site
every six months. The remediation time required to achieve the
background levels is dependent on the extent of ground water
contamination, aquifer properties, and source characteristics
that are uncertain at this time. Based on contaminant transport
modeling analysis, the estimated time to restore the ground water
to background levels is approximately 15 years. Because of the
uncertainties associated with the volume of contamination (depth
of plume) and the potential for DNAPLs at the Site, the cleanup
of the ground water is expected to take considerably longer than
the 15 year estimate. Construction time for this alternative is
estimated at 18 months.

Compliance with ARARs

Alternative 3 is designed to meet the SDWA MCLs and MCLGs for the
contaminants of concern. Also, this alternative would meet the
risk-based action levels as referenced in the NCP as acceptable
ground water cleanup criteria.

Alternative 3 would comply with the Pennsylvania Hazardous
Regulations, 25 Pa.Code §264.90-264.100 and in particular, 25
Pa.Code §§ 264.97(i)(j) and 264.100(a)(9), which require
contaminated ground water to be remediated to background levels.

Alternative 3 would comply with the U.S. EPA's Ground water
Protection Strategy Policy for a Class 2 aquifer which is a "To
Be Considered" (TBC) standard.

Alternative 3 would comply with the ground water monitoring

- 21 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

requirements of the Pennsylvania Hazardous Management
Regulations, 25 Pa.Code Chapter 264.

Alternative 3 would comply with fugitive emissions control
requirements according with the Clean Air Act, The Pennsylvania
Air Quality Regulations, 25 Pa.Code Chapter 127, and OSWER
Directive 9355 0-28. There may be an additional requirement of
air monitoring to verify compliance.

For this alternative, discharge of the treated ground water would
be in compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act,
including water quality standards and the requirements of the
Pennsylvania NPDES discharge program and Clean Streams Law.

For this alternative, pumping of ground water and discharge of
treated water would be in compliance with the requirements of the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

All residuals generated as part of the implementation of this
alternative would be handled, transported, treated, and disposed
of in accordance with the requirements of RCRA Title C Hazardous
Waste Regulations, the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations, Proposed Pennsylvania Residual Waste Regulation (a
TBC), U.S. DOT Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport, and
Pennsylvania Hazardous Transportation Regulations.

This alternative fully complies with one of the goals of CERCLA:
to utilize treatment that permanently reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the contaminants at the site.

Cost

Costs associated with Alternative 3 are based on a 30 year
remediation period (the maximum period of performance used by EPA
for costing purposes) because of the potential DNAPLs on Site.
The present-worth of this alternative is estimated to be
$37,402,000 with a capital cost of $13,234,000 and an O&M cost of
$1,568,000 annually plus $20,000 every 5 years.

D. Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction,
Treatment/Reinjection, Discharge, and Connection to Public
Hater System

This alternative also includes Alternative 2 to provide public
health protection while remaining components of Alternative 4 are
being designed, constructed, and implemented. The key features of
Alternative 4 include extracting contaminated ground water,
treating the ground water on Site, reinjecting a portion of the

- 22 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

treated ground water, and then discharging the balance of the
treated ground water. This alternative was developed to achieve
background contaminant levels to comply with the Pennsylvania
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (25 Pa.Code Chapter 264)
and to eliminate the existing and future threat to residential
wells and uncontaminated ground water.

The conceptual design for the ground water extraction and
reinjection system is shown in Figure 10. Because the current
depth of contamination is uncertain, a number of assumptions were
required concerning the extent of the contaminated plume to
develop this conceptual design. Additional monitoring wells and
pumping tests will be required during the remedial design phase
prior to preparing final design concerning number, locations and
depth of wells, screen intervals and discharge rate. Treatability
testing is not anticipated.

The conceptual design developed for Alternative 4 includes
15 extraction wells located in the interior of the plume and
12 reinjection wells located along the upgradient and
downgradient edges of the Site. The ground water reinjection
wells establish a hydraulic gradient that reduces dilution of the
contaminant plume by controlling the influx of adjacent waters.
This action of the reinjection wells serves to shorten the ground
water remediation time. The proposed conceptual design is based
on extracting a total of 1,200 gallons of water per minute (gpm)
from within the contaminant plume. After treatment under an ideal
closed system scenario, treated water would be reinjected into
the ground. Unfortunately, the depth to ground water at the Site
is very shallow (0 to 23 feet below ground surface). This,
combined with the fractured nature of the bedrock, restricts the
total volume of water that the aquifer can absorb in any given
period of time through reinjection. Based on ground water
pumping rate calculations, the maximum volume of reinjection
water the aquifer could accept using 12 injection wells (optimum
for the given scenario) is approximately 400 gpm. The remaining
800 gpm would therefore have to be discharged off Site to a
receptor such as Mauses Creek, and/or the Susquehanna River.

The following description of the treatment system for
Alternative 4 is only conceptual and other systems could be
considered during the Remedial Design Phase. Under Alternative 4,
the contaminated ground water would be extracted from 15 wells
each pumping at an average rate of 80 gpm for an overall
extraction rate of 1,200 gpm. See Figure 11 for the Ground water
Treatment Flow Diagram. The combined groundwater flow would
first enter a cone-bottom predecantation tank for the separation
of any free product that may be extracted. Free product would be
collected from the bottom of the predecantation tank to a storage

- 23 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

tank and periodically disposed of off-site at an EPA approved
facility. The groundwater would then be subjected to chemical
precipitation and iron removal. The precipitated metal hydroxide
sludge will be separated out in an inclined plate gravity
settler. The residual sludge will be dewatered utilizing a filter
press and the sludge cake, which is anticipated to be a hazardous
waste, will be transported to an off-site RCRA approved landfill.

The volatile organics from the chemical precipitation unit
effluent water will be removed using an air stripper. Chlorinated
volatile (PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC) emissions from the air stripper
are estimated to average about 149 pounds per day which
considerably exceeds the allowable maximum of 15 pounds per day,
under OSWER Directive 9355.0-28 To Be Considered (TBC) standards.
Therefore, an emission control system will be provided. Emissions
from the air stripper will be subjected to a thermal destruction
unit which will break down organics including vinyl chloride. The
effluent from the air stripper will be subjected to a carbon
adsorption system to remove remaining organics. The effluent from
the granular activated carbon adsorption system would then be
treated in an ion exchange system for the removal of residual
metals to the background contaminant levels.

The effluent from the ion exchange system would be collected in a
10,000-gallon clear well tank and pumped from there to
12 strategically located reinjection wells. The waste brine
generated by the ion exchange system regeneration would be stored
in a mixed tank and concentrated in a evaporation system. The
clean condensate from the evaporator would be collected in the
final effluent clear well for reinjection and the concentrated
brine would be hauled off-site to a RCRA approved facility for
treatment and disposal.

Under this alternative, 800 gpm of the effluent of the treatment
system would be pumped for discharge to either Mauses Creek, the
Susquehanna River, or possibly both by a 10-inch-diameter pipe,
and 400 gpm of the effluent would be reinjected into the aquifer
using 12 injection wells at 33 gpm each. Because the 10-year, 7-
day average minimum flow for Mauses Creek is only 63 gpm,
discharge to Mauses Creek may be limited and, therefore, all or
part of the treated groundwater may need to be discharged to the
Susquehanna River. For the purpose of costing, the cost of
discharging all the treated ground water to the Susquehanna River
was included as a "worst case" scenario in this alternative.
During the design phase, discharge to the wetland area, Mauses
Creek, and/or the Susquehanna River will be considered.

Once the cleanup levels as set in performance standards are
achieved (Performance Standards are set forth in detail in

- 24 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

Section IX, below), there may be some residual contamination
remaining in the ground water. Some of the ground water, most of
which flows in fractured bedrock, may not be intercepted by the
extraction well system. In addition, contaminants may exit and/or
migrate into fractures that are not interconnected (i.e., dead-
end fractures) and, as a result, may not be readily extractable.
Once the cleanup levels as set in the performance standards are
achieved, contaminants may reappear with time. For this reason,
periodic ground water monitoring and 5-year site reviews pursuant
to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), would be
required to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

Effectiveness

Alternative 4 would provide a public water supply and remove
groundwater contaminants down to background levels. As such,
this alternative would prevent human exposure to ground water
contaminants, protect uncontaminated ground water, and restore
contaminated ground water to background cleanup levels.

Ground water extraction and reinjection wells, pumps, conveyance
systems, and ground water monitoring are widely used at hazardous
waste sites and are a proven technological system. There would be
minimal risk to workers and the community associated with
implementation of Alternative 4. Air strippers and carbon
adsorption vessels commonly are used for water and wastewater
treatment and are highly reliable if periodic inspections and
maintenance are performed.

The treatment system is not expected to remove the very low
concentrations of acetone (47 ng/1) in the extraction water.
Because of its very high water solubility, acetone neither air
strips or adsorbs on activated carbon in an effective manner, it
only responds well to biodegradation. However, biological
treatment of such a low level of contamination is not practical
and risk from long-term ingestion is low.
- 25 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
Implementability
The treatment processes included in Alternative 4 are well
demonstrated and readily implementable. Multiple suppliers are
available to provide each of the proposed treatment units.

It is desirable to create a closed-loop system using the ground
water extraction and injection wells where all of the reinjected
water is controlled and eventually captured by the extraction
wells. However, establishment of a closed system in fractured
bedrock would be difficult. Reinjected water that is transported
in discrete fractures may not be captured by the extraction wells
and potentially could force contaminated groundwater into lesser
contaminated areas.

If reinjection is performed offsite, it will be necessary to
obtain a Water Quality Management permit from Pennsylvania.

Operation and maintenance of the groundwater extraction wells and
treatment system would be required on a regular and ongoing
basis. It is anticipated that at least six operators would be
required for the treatment system on an 24-hour-a-day, 5-day-a-
week basis.

During remediation, treatment system operators and the
neighboring community would be protected from air stripping
fugitive emissions by a thermal off-gas treatment system.
Perimeter air monitoring and work area breathing zone monitoring
may be required to verify the effectiveness of the off-gas
treatment system, but this determination cannot be made until the
treatment system is actually designed. Also, during the
remediation, special procedures, including wearing of appropriate
protective clothing, would have to be followed by treatment
system operators for the handling of residuals including spent
activated carbon, filter press cake, and concentrated ion
exchange regeneration brine.

Residuals generated by the treatment processes would be limited
to about 4.5 cubic yards per day of filter press cake and
approximately 3,000 gallons per day of concentrated ion exchange
regeneration brine. The remediation time required to achieve the
background levels is dependent on the extent of ground water
contamination, aquifer properties, and source characteristics
that are uncertain at this time. Based on contaminant transport
modeling analysis, the estimated time to restore the ground water
to background levels for all contaminants except antimony is
approximately 10 years. Because of the uncertainties associated
with the volume of contamination (depth of plume) and the
potential for DNAPLs on the Site, the cleanup of the ground water

-26-
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

is expected to take considerably longer than the 10-year
estimate. Construction time for this alternative is estimated at
18 months.

Compliance with ARARs

Alternative 4 would meet the SWDA MCLs, and MCLGs for the
contaminants of concern. This alternative would meet the risk-
based action levels as referenced in the NCP as acceptable ground
water cleanup criteria.

Alternative 4 would comply with the Pennsylvania Hazardous
Regulations, 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.90-264.100 and in particular, 25
Pa.Code §§ 264.97(i)(j) and 264.100(a)(9), that require
contaminated ground water to be remediated to background levels.

Alternative 4 would comply with the EPA's Ground water Protection
Strategy Policy for a Class 2 aquifer which is a "To Be
Considered" (TBC) standard. Alternative 4 would comply with the
ground water monitoring requirements of the Pennsylvania
Hazardous Management Regulations (25 Pa.Code Chapter 264).

For this alternative, discharge of the treated ground water would
be in compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and
would meet the requirements of the Pennsylvania NPDES discharge
program.

Extraction of contaminated ground water, reinjection and
discharge of the treated ground water would meet the requirements
of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

Alternative 4 would comply with fugitive emissions control
requirements promulgated under with the Clean Air Act,
Pennsylvania Air Quality Regulations, 25 Pa.Code Chapter 127, and
OSWER Directive 9355 0-28.

All residuals generated as part of the implementation of this
alternative would be handled, transported, treated, and disposed
of in accordance with the requirements of RCRA Title C Hazardous
Waste Regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 262), Pennsylvania Municipal
Waste Regulations, 25 Pa.Code Chapter 75, a TBC standard,
proposed Pennsylvania Residual Waste Regulations, 25 Pa.Code
Chapters 287 to 299 (a TBC), U.S. DOT Rules for Hazardous
Materials Transport (40 C.F.R. Part 263), and Pennsylvania
Hazardous Transportation Regulations.

This alternative fully complies with one of the goals of CERCLA:
to utilize treatment that permanently reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the contaminants at the site.

- 27 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
Cost
Costs associated with Alternative 4 are based on a 30-year
remediation period (the maximum period of performance used by EPA
for costing purposes) because of the potential DNAPLs on Site.
The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be
$69,334,000 with a capital cost of $20,830,000 and an O&M cost of
$3,151,000 annually plus $20,000 every 5 years.

VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

A detailed analysis was performed on all of the alternatives
using the nine criteria specified in the NCP in order to select a
remedy for OU 3. The following is a summary of the comparison of
each of the alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect
to the nine criteria. EPA is required to compare and balance
these criteria in selecting a remedy.

A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 1, which only includes monitoring, would not provide
any additional reduction in the risks associated with use of
contaminated ground water other than that offered by natural
attenuation and dilution of the ground water contamination. For
ground water users residing outside of the current extent of
contamination, however, Alternative 1 would help to reduce the
potential or likelihood of future exposure to contaminated
groundwater.

By providing a public water supply, Alternative 2 would provide a
higher degree of overall protection of the human health than
Alternative 1. Neither Alternatives l or 2 would help to protect
uncontaminated ground water for current and future use nor
restore the ground water to acceptable drinking water levels.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce migration of contaminants
into the wetland areas.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would restore contaminated ground water to
the contaminant background levels. Following startup of the
ground water extraction system in Alternatives 3 and 4, a
hydraulic gradient or barrier would be established by the pumping
system. This hydraulic barrier would help to contain the
contaminant plume and therefore reduce the potential for
migration of contaminants into uncontaminated ground water. By
providing a public water supply with Alternatives 3 and 4, the
public health would be protected from exposure to contaminated
ground water while the ground water aquifer is being restored.

- 28 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
Alternatives 3 and 4 would achieve a greater degree of overall
protection of human health and the environment than
Alternatives 1 and 2.
B. Compliance with ARARs

CERCLA requires that remedial actions meet applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other federal and state
environmental laws. These laws may include: the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

An "applicable" requirement is one that would legally apply to
the response action if that action were not taken pursuant to
Sections 104, 106 or 122 of CERCLA. A "relevant and appropriate"
requirement is one that, while not applicable, is designed to
apply to a sufficiently similar problem and its application is
appropriate.

For the contaminants of concern (Table 14), Alternative 1 would
not meet the SDWA MCLs and MCLGs, nor the risk-based action
levels, all of which are referenced by the NCP as acceptable
ground water cleanup criteria depending on the circumstances of
the Site.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not comply with the requirements of
the Pennsylvania Hazardous Regulations, 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.90-
264.1QO and in particular, 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.97(i)(j) and
264.100(a)(9), that require contaminated ground water to be
remediated to background levels. With respect to location-
specific ARARs, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not comply with EPA's
Ground Water Protection Strategy policy for a Class 2 aquifer,
which is a "To Be Considered" (TBC) standard. Nor would these
alternatives comply with Pennsylvania water quality monitoring
regulations that require a ground water abatement plan to be
developed and implemented if ground water pollution is detected
in one or more monitoring wells.

With respect to location-specific ARARs, Alternatives 3 and 4
comply with the EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy policy for
a Class 2 aquifer, which is a "To Be Considered" (TBC) standard
by protecting current and potential sources of drinking water and
waters having other beneficial uses.

Onsite treatment (Alternatives 3 and 4) and transportation of any
treatment residuals off-site would comply with the various RCRA
regulations as well as the DOT Rules for Hazardous Materials
Transport (49 C.F.R. Parts 107 and 171-179) and Pennsylvania

- 29 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

requirements for the transportation of treated residue off-site.

Only Alternatives 3 and 4 would comply with the Pennsylvania
Hazardous Regulations, 25 PA. Code 264.90-264.100 and in
particular, 25 PA. Code 264.97(i)(j) and 264.100(a)(9), which
require contaminated ground water to be remediated to background
levels.

For Alternative 4, subsurface reinjection does not need to comply
with RCRA LDR requirements, since the actions are CERCLA remedial
responses.

Operation of the on-site treatment system (Alternatives 3 and 4),
would comply with OSWER Directive 9355.0-28 as well as with the
various air quality permitting criteria of the Pennsylvania Air
Quality Control regulation, 25 Pa.Code Chapter 127, Construction,
Modification, Reactivation and Operation of Sources.

For Alternatives 3 and 4, discharge of treated ground water would
comply with all state and federal NPDES discharge regulations
(40 C.F.R. Part 122) and any other applicable or relevant and
appropriate state and local regulations that pertain to
discharges.

Alternatives 3 and 4 fully comply with one of the goals of
CERCLA: to utilize treatment that permanently reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the contaminants at the site, whereas
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not comply with this objective.

C. Short-term Effectiveness

Since the only remedial action involved with Alternatives 1 and 2
is the installation of monitoring wells and the construction of
water mains and service lines, protection of workers and the
community from exposure to contaminated materials during remedial
actions is not a major consideration for these two alternatives.
Monitoring wells could be installed in approximately 2 weeks,
once a field crew and equipment are mobilized. The estimated
construction time for installation of additional water lines for
the community near the Site is approximately 6 months.

Based on modeling analysis, the estimated remediation time is
approximately 15 years for Alternative 3 and 10 years for
Alternative 4 (based on the assumed plume volume). These
treatment times were developed for costing and alternative
comparison purposes only. They are not intended to represent
accurately the actual times required to restore the aquifer to
the cleanup levels because of the uncertainties associated with

- 30 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

the plume volume and the potential for DNAPLs on the Site. The
construction time for Alternatives 3 and 4 is estimated at
18 months.

With respect to Alternatives 3 and 4, air strippers, carbon
adsorption vessels, ground water extraction wells, and ground
water monitoring are widely used at hazardous waste sites and are
highly reliable if periodic inspections and maintenance are
performed. There may be some degree of inhalation risk to
workers and the community associated with failure of the off-gas
collection and treatment system. Perimeter air monitoring and
breathing zone monitoring in work areas would be performed during
operation of the air stripper to determine whether steps are
needed to protect the community and workers from adverse air
emissions during implementation and operation of this
alternative. Careful monitoring and maintenance of the process
controls would minimize exposure risks associated with failures
of the treatment system.

D. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Since no actions would be taken to remediate the ground water
under Alternative 1, the health risks remaining after
implementation of this alternative would be identical to those
presently posed by use of contaminated ground water. For ground
water users residing downgradient of the contaminated area,
ground water monitoring provides a minimal degree of long-term
protection from exposure to contaminated ground water.

Alternative 2 meets the objective of eliminating the public
health risk associated with potable and nonpotable use of
contaminated groundwater. Alternative 2 would achieve a higher
degree of long-term effectiveness than Alternative 1.

With respect to environmental risks, the contaminants in the
ground water would continue to migrate over time under
Alternatives 1 and 2. Due to the characteristic fracturing of
the bedrock within the area, an accurate flow rate can not be
assigned to contaminant migration. Aquifer testing indicates
potential flow rates range from a minimum of 0.006 feet per day
in the overburden to a maximum of 378 feet per day in the shallow
(fractured) bedrock.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide long-term protection of public
health from exposure to contaminated ground water by providing a
public water supply and by removing the contaminants of concern
to background levels, except for antimony. These alternatives
would also prevent significant contaminant migration within the
aquifer by establishing a hydraulic barrier.

- 31 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
E. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants in the ground water. Over time,
contaminant levels in the present areas of contamination may
decrease gradually through natural dilution, although the ground
water plume itself may increase in area. Further, some of the
plume would discharge into the wetland and Mauses Creek and could
further degrade the environment there.

Alternatives 3 and 4, over the long-term, would restore ground
water in the area of contamination to the background action
levels. Unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternatives 3 and 4 would
provide an irreversible treatment process that would
significantly reduce the toxicity of the contaminated ground
water.

F. Implementability

Of the four alternatives, Alternative 1, No Action, would be the
easiest to implement. Under Alternative 1, monitoring wells
could be installed readily and maintained at the Site, and a
ground water monitoring program implemented easily. A ground
water monitoring program would not interfere with any future
remedial actions to be taken at the Site.

Alternative 2 can also be implemented easily, but would require
the participation of the Danville Municipal Authority and state
and local municipalities for the construction of water mains
within existing road right-of-ways. The public water supply is
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Danville
Municipal Authority is in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water
Act and operates under a state permit.

Because Alternatives 3 and 4 involve the extraction and treatment
of ground water, there are more implementation and operation
considerations associated with these two alternatives than with
Alternatives 1 and 2.

The components of the air stripping and carbon adsorption system
(Alternatives 3 and 4) are readily implementable using existing
technologies. No special materials or equipment would be
required. Operation and maintenance considerations include
cleaning and replacement of wells and well pumps; maintenance of
blower units; cleaning of fouled packing; and regeneration of the
liquid and vapor phase carbon units. Also, monitoring of the
effluent water and exhaust gas would be required to ensure
compliance and reliability of the systems.

- 32 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

While Alternative 4 is predicted to restore the aquifer sooner
than Alternative 3, Alternative 4 is more difficult to implement.
With respect to Alternative 4, it would be desirable to create a
closed system using the ground water extraction and injection
wells in which all reinjected water is controlled and eventually
captured by the extraction wells. However, establishment of a
closed system in fractured bedrock would be difficult.
Reinjected water that is transported in discrete fractures may
not be captured by the extraction wells and potentially could
force contaminated groundwater into lesser contaminated areas.
Also, the multi-directional flow of the groundwater across the
Site would make a closed-loop system difficult to implement.

The requirement of the selected remedy is to achieve the
background levels of chemicals of Concern (Table 14) in the
ground water, which is a relevant and appropriate requirement
under the PA Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

G. Cost

The present-worth cost for Alternative 1 is $2,216,000 and the
present-worth cost for Alternative 2 is $1,184,000. Costs
associated with Alternatives 3 and 4 are based on a remediation
time of 30-years (the maximum period of performance used by EPA
for costing purposes) because of the potential presence of DNAPLs
on the Site. The present-worth costs for Alternatives 3 and 4 are
$37,402,000 and $69,334,000, respectively.

H. State Acceptance

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has concurred with the selected
remedy (Alternative 3). The Commonwealth has also indicated that
PADER agrees with the proposed remediation standards which
provides that "background" quality is the required level of the
ground water remediation plan.

I. Community Acceptance

Community acceptance is assessed in the attached Responsiveness
Summary. In general, the community has accepted the remedy. The
Responsiveness Summary provides a thorough review of the comments
received on the 1992 the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and the
Proposed Plan.

In selecting a remedy for the Site, EPA evaluated and balance
each of the nine criteria discussed above.
- 33 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
IX. SELECTED REMEDY
A. General Description of Remedy

The remedy selected by EPA at the MW Manufacturing Site for
Operable Unit 3 is Alternative 3, to restore the groundwater in
the area of attainment to background levels for chemicals of
concern (listed in Table 14) and to protect the public from
exposure to contaminated water. The area of attainment is at and
beyond the boundary of the Plant and throughout the contaminant
plume as shown in the Figure 4. The selected remedy shall be
accomplished through the implementation of certain tasks
including ground water extraction, treatment, discharge and
connection of well water users to a Public Water System. Based
on current information, this alternative provides the best
balance among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria
EPA uses to evaluate each alternative.
B. Strategy if the Remedy is not Achieved

Based on the information obtained during the RI, and the analysis
of the remedial alternatives, EPA and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania believe that it may be possible to achieve the
selected remedy. However, ground water contamination may be
especially persistent in the immediate vicinity of the
contaminants' source, where concentrations are relatively high
and a DNAPL likely is present. The ability to achieve cleanup
requirements at all points throughout the area of attainment, or
plume, cannot be determined until the extraction system has been
implemented, modified as necessary, and plume response monitored
over time.

If it is determined by EPA, in consultation with PADER, that on
the basis of the system performance data, that certain portions
of the aquifer cannot be restored to background levels, and/or if
it is technically impracticable to restore the aquifer, EPA will
amend the ROD or issue an Explanation of Significant Differences.
In such event, the likely alternative actions will attempt to
remediate the ground water to its beneficial use, that would be
used as a drinking water source. If the aquifer can not be
restored to its beneficial use, all of the following measures
involving long-term management could occur, as determined by EPA
in consultation with PADER, for an indefinite period of time, as
a modification of the existing system:
- 34 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

1) engineering control such as physical barriers, or long-
term gradient control provided by low level pumping, as
containment measures;

2) waiver of chemical-specific ARARs for the cleanup of
those portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;

3) institutional controls to restrict access to those
portions of the aquifer which remain above remediation
goals;

4) continued monitoring of specified wells; and

5) periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for
ground water restoration.

A pre-design study must be implemented that will include
gathering additional field data for design information.
Treatability studies may also be needed to develop an adequate
treatment system.

C. Description of the Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy shall consist of the following elements:

1. Constructing public water supply lines and
providing connections to the residences and
businesses depicted in Figure 6 to the supply
lines:

2. Installing a well system to pump ground water from the
contamination plume; and

3. Constructing and installing a treatment system to
remove contamination from the extracted ground water
including:

a. A Chemical Precipitation Unit;

b. An Air Stripper;

c. A Carbon Adsorption Unit; and,

d. A Thermal Destruction Unit.

- 35 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
4. Pumping ground water from installed wells and
treating extracted water;

5. Discharging treated water to Mauses Creek and/or
the Susquehanna River;

6. Monitoring treatment progress by collecting
samples from the monitoring wells and analyzing
the samples; and

7. Achieving all performance standards detailed in
D., below.

D. Performance Standards

1. Connection to the Public Water Supply

The public water supply lines shall be constructed in
compliance with the Danville Municipal Authority, local and
state requirements. Connections shall be offered and
provided to the residences and businesses depicted in Figure
6.

2. Ground Water Cleanup Levels

The well system for extracting groundwater shall be operated
until the groundwater is cleaned up to background levels
throughout the entire Site. The Pennsylvania ARAR for
ground water for hazardous substances is that all ground
water must be remediated to "background" quality as
specified by 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.90 - 264.100, specifically
25 Pa.Code §§ 264.97(i) and (j) and § 264.100(a)(9), which
are relevant and appropriate requirements under the
Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management Regulation. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also maintains that the
requirement to remediate to background is also found in
other legal authorities. The cleanup level for each
contaminant of concern in the ground water is the background
concentration of that contaminant. The background
concentration for each contaminant of concern shall be
established by EPA during Remedial Design. In the event
that a contaminant of concern is not detected in samples
taken for the establishment of background concentrations,
the method detection limits of EPA approved low level
drinking water analytical methods with respect to that
contaminant of concern or MCLs, whichever are more

- 36 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

stringent, shall constitute the "background" concentration
of the contaminant.

3. Ground Water Extraction System

The gro'und water shall be decontaminated through extraction
and treatment of the contaminated ground water throughout
the plume. The extraction shall create a capture zone to
capture contaminated ground water throughout the plume.
Ground water shall be extracted using multiple extraction
wells, the exact location, extraction rate and number of
which shall be determined during Remedial Design and shall
be approved by EPA in consultation with PADER.

4. Chemical Precipitation

Extracted ground water shall be treated in a Chemical
Precipitation unit. The size of the Chemical Precipitation
unit shall be determined during the remedial design and
shall be approved by EPA. Treatment residuals from the
Chemical Precipitation unit shall be disposed of in
accordance with the requirements under Pennsylvania Law, 25
Pa.Code Chapter 75, a municipal waste regulation, a TBC
standard, proposed Pennsylvania Residual Waste Regulation,
25 Pa.Code Chapters 287-299, a TCB standard, RCRA Title C
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, the Pennsylvania
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

5. Air Stripper

The effluent water from the Chemical Precipitation unit
shall be treated using a packed column air stripper. Air
flow rates and air stripper dimensions shall be determined
during the remedial design and shall be approved by EPA in
consultation with PADER.

6. Carbon Adsorber

The effluent water from the stripping shall be treated by a
carbon adsorption unit, the size of which shall be
determined during Remedial Design and shall be approved by
EPA in consultation with PADER. The spent carbon shall be
regenerated off-site in an EPA approved facility.

7. Thermal Destruction Unit

Contaminants in the effluent air from the Air Stripper unit
shall be thermally broken down in a thermal destruction
unit, the size of which shall be determined during Remedial
- 37 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
Design and shall be approved by EPA in consultation with
PADER. The levels of contaminants in the effluent air shall
meet the PADER requirements of Best Available Treatment and
shall be approved by EPA in consultation with PADER.

8. Discharge of Treated Water

The treated water from the carbon adsorption unit shall be
discharged into Mauses Creek or the Susquehanna River. The
point of discharge shall be determined during the remedial
design and shall be approved by EPA in consultation with
PADER. The discharging of water shall comply with
requirements of NPDES standards. The specific discharge
criteria shall be established by EPA during Remedial Design.

9. Quality Control Monitoring

Parameters, frequency and type of monitoring of process
variables including effluent air from the Thermal
Destruction unit and discharge water from the Carbon
Adsorption unit shall be determined during Remedial Design
and shall be approved by EPA.

10. Area of Attainment

The area of attainment for the cleanup is the extent of
contamination plume and is shown in Figure 4.

11. Monitoring of Cleanup

A system of monitoring wells shall be designed to monitor
the cleanup progress throughout the plume and shall be
installed. Number and locations of these monitoring wells
shall be approved by EPA in consultation with PADER. The
wells shall be sampled quarterly for the first two years and
semi-annually thereafter until the levels of contaminants of
concern in these wells have reached the background levels.
Once background cleanup levels are reached throughout the
plume, these wells shall be sampled for twelve consecutive
quarters and if contaminant levels remain at these levels,
the operation of the extraction system shall be shutdown.
Semi-annual monitoring of the ground water shall continue
for five years. If subsequent to the extraction system
shutdown, monitoring shows the ground water concentrations
of any contaminant of concern to be above background or
other agreed upon cleanup level, the system shall be
restarted and continued until the levels have once more been
attained for twelve consecutive quarters. Semi-annual
monitoring shall continue until EPA determines in
- 38 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site
consultation with PADER that contaminants have reached
stable levels below background.

12. Five Year Review

Because DNAPLs may remain on-site as a source of future
ground water contamination, Five Year Reviews shall be
conducted after the remedy is implemented to assure that the
remedy continues to protect human health and the
environment. A Five Year Review work plan shall be drafted
after the remedy is implemented and shall be approved by EPA
in consultation with PADER.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy will provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment by providing a public water supply, by
extracting the contaminated ground water to achieve background
levels, and by treating the ground water prior to discharge to
Mauses Creek and/or the Susquehanna River. Once the background
cleanup levels are achieved, the ground water exposure levels
will be reduced to background contaminant levels.

Implementation of the selected remedy will not pose unacceptable
short-term risks or cross-media impacts.

The environmental assessment indicated the Site has had some
minor adverse effects on the biota of Mauses Creek nearest the
Site, but that the downstream station was shown to have fully
recovered. The remediation of ground water will reduce the
quantity of contaminants discharged to the creek, thereby
improving the aquatic habitat.

B. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The Selected Remedy restores the ground water to background
cleanup levels for the contaminants of concern (Table 14), and
shall comply with the ARARs contained in this section. The
Pennsylvania ARAR for ground water for hazardous substances is
that all ground water must be remediated to "background" quality
as specified by 25 Pa.Code §§ 264.97(i) and (j) and
264.100(a)(9), which is a relevant and appropriate requirement
under the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management regulation.

- 39 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also maintains that the
requirement to remediate to background is also found in other
legal authorities. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Ground
Water Quality Protection Strategy is a TBC standard if the
background goal is not achievable.

With respect to location-specific ARARs, the selected remedy
complies with the EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy policy
for an aquifer that is a current source of drinking water, a "To
Be Considered" (TBC), by protecting current and potential sources
of drinking water and waters having other beneficial uses.
On-site treatment and transportation of any treatment residuals
off-site would need to comply with the following RCRA
regulations:

• Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste (40 C.F.R. Part 262)

• Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Waste (40 C.F.R. Part 263)

• Regulations and standards for owners and operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (40 C.F.R. Part 264)

• Interim status standards for owners and operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal
Facilities (40 C.F.R. Part 265)

• Land Disposal Restrictions (40 C.F.R. Part 268)

• PA Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (25
Pa.Code, Chapters 262, 263, 264, and 265)

Further, proposed Pennsylvania Residual Waste Regulations, 25
Pa.Code Chapters 287 - 299, are a TBC and would be complied with
in the implementation of this remedy.

Transportation of any treatment residuals off-site shall also
comply with the DOT Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport
(49 C.F.R. Parts 107 and 171-179).

Under this remedy, discharge of treated ground water shall comply
with the following:

• Clean Water Act NPDES discharge regulations
(40 C.F.R. Parts 122-124)
- 40 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

• Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law (25 Pa.Code Chapter
5)

• Pennsylvania NPDES Regulations:

25 Pa.Code Chapter 16 (Water Quality Toxics)
25 Pa.Code Chapter 91 (General Provisions)
25 Pa.Code Chapter 92 (NPDES)
25 Pa.Code Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards)
25 Pa.Code Chapter 95 (Water Treatment
Requirements)
25 Pa.Code Chapter 101 (Special Water Pollution)

• Extraction of groundwater and discharge of treated
water shall comply with the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission requirements

Under this remedy, discharge of contaminants in the air shall
need to comply with the following:

• Clean Air Act requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et
seq.

• Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act

• PA Air Quality Regulations:

25 Pa.Code Chapter 123 (Standards for
Contaminants)

25 Pa.Code Chapter 127 (Construction,
Modification, Reactivation, and Operation of
Sources)

• • PA Bureau of Air Quality Memorandum (TBC)
Air Quality Permitting Criteria for Remediation
Projects Involving Air Strippers and Soil
Decontamination Units
C. Cost-Effectiveness

The selected remedy affords overall effectiveness proportionate
to its costs. While Alternatives 1 and 2 can be implemented at
lower costs than the selected remedy, they are less protective of
human health and the environment and do not meet ARARs.
Alternative 4 would remediate the ground water in less time than
the selected remedy but is significantly more costly to construct
and operate and also more difficult to implement than the

- 41 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

selected remedy.

D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
(or Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP)

EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized while providing the best balance
among the other evaluation criteria. Of the alternatives that
are protective of human health and the environment and meet
ARARs, EPA has determined that the selected remedy provides the
best balance in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost.

The selected remedy addresses threats posed by the contaminated
ground water. The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, meets ARARs, incorporates treatment as a principal
element, and is cost-effective. If the selected remedy cannot be
achieved, this ROD will be amended or an BSD will be yissued. Of
the alternatives, only Alternatives 3 and 4 would restore the
contaminated aquifer to its beneficial uses.

Alternative 3 would provide long-term protection of public health
from exposure to contaminated ground water by providing a public
water supply and by removing the contaminants of concern to
background levels. This alternative would also prevent
significant contaminant migration by establishing a hydraulic
barrier. This alternative would also reduce the toxicity and
volume of contaminated ground water.

For these reasons, the selected remedy (Alternative 3) provides
the best balance of trade-offs in terms of the evaluating
criteria.

E. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected remedy satisfies the CERCLA preference for remedies
that incorporate treatment as a principal component.

XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The Proposed Plan for the MW Manufacturing Site was released for
public comment in April 1991. The Proposed Plan identified
Alternative 3 (ground water extraction, treatment, discharge, and

- 42 -
-------
Record of Decision, OU3
MW Manufacturing Site

connection to public water system) as the preferred alternative.
EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the
public comment period. Upon review of these comments, it was
determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as it was
originally identified as in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
- 43 -
-------
TABLE 1
HISTORY OF ACTIVITIES AND VIOLATIONS
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Date
December 1970
April 8, 1971
May 13, 1971
August 10, 1971
October 6, 1971
December 2, 1971
December 14, 1971
March 17, 1972
May 1972
August 1972
November 1972
May 24, 1973
September 12, 1981
February 19, 1982
April 13, 1982
May 6, 1982
September 3, 1982
September 2, 1982
Description of Activity/Violation
Cited for copper ions in outfall discharge.
Consent Order dictated by PADER for lack of fluff
cover, oil discharge, and improper storage of drums
containing industrial waste water.
Permit for extended aeration.
Cited for oil in outfall discharge.
Permit granted for industrial waste discharge.
Violation of Clean Streams Law, PADER detected sewage
in Mauses Creek.
Ordered to correct previous violations by PADER.
Letter from site owner to PADER stating items in
Consent Decree have been corrected.
MW Manufacturing filed Chapter 11, Philadelphia
National Bank (PNB) acquired the property.
PADER memo requesting investigation of pooled
industrial waste, fluff storage, and offsite
discharge.
Order to PNB to remove fluff material.
Disclaimer from Nassau Smelting and Refining Company
to PADER regarding fluff material.
Joint PADER Bureau of Water Quality Management and
PADER Solid Waste Division sampling of the site.
Initial inspection by PADER Solid Waste Division
PADER Solid Waste Management sampled the site.
PADER responded to report of an onsite fire at the
recovery building. Samples were taken of fluff piles
and tested for asbestos. Results were negative.
The original Consent Order (April 1971) and Agreement
were forwarded to Mr. Sabia by PADER.
PADER provided an additional 24-month extension to a
36-month time schedule proposed in the Consent Order.
Extension granted in order to find a market for the
resale of the processed plastic.
-------
TABLE 1
HISTORY OF ACTIVITIES AND VIOLATIONS
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Date
November 1, 1982
February 1, 1983
February 13, 1984
September 6, 1984
September 24, 1985
June to October 1988
March 31, 1989
June 29, 1990
July to
September 1990
May to July 1991
February to
March 1992
March 2 to
March 6, 1992'
Description of Activity/Violation
Onsite sampling was conducted for the
potentially-responsible party (PRP) by Dunn
Geoscience.
Initial results from November 1982 sampling were
forwarded to PADER.
Onsite and offsite sampling was conducted as
part of EPA FIT survey.
EPA assigns the site a score of 46.44 using its
Hazardous Ranking System.
EPA TAT conducts onsite and offsite sampling.
Ebasco/NUS conducted a Remedial Investigation on
behalf of EPA at the MW Manufacturing Site.
EPA issued ROD addressing Operable Unit 1
(Carbon Waste) .
EPA issued ROD addressing Operable Unit 2 iFluf f
Waste, Soil, Drums, Tanks, and Lagoon).
Remedial Action for Operable Unit 1 implemented.
Carbon waste was excavated and RCRA portion of
waste was incinerated offsite. TSCA portion of
waste was packed into steel drums on site.
HALLIBURTON NUS conducted a second remedial
investigation for EPA focusing on the
groundwater and wetlands of the site.
Remedial Action for Operable Unit 1 completed.
Drums of carbon waste (TSCA) were loaded onto
trucks and shipped offsite for incineration.
Additional round of residential wells sampled by
HALLIBURTON NUS for EPA.
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - GROUNDWATER
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
sec-Butylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (totaO
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Carbon disutfide
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-TrichIorobenzene
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples (1)
5/42
4/50
6/50
1/50
1/50
1/5
2/5
35/47
39/50
30/50
12/50
11/50
1/50
26/50
1/40
4/50
1/5
1/5
3/49
3/50
3/50
5/50
1/31
2/36
1/50
Range of Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
86-870
1.2-340
0.7-58
1
2
1.6
1.5-2.4
1-44,000
1-16,000
0.7-53,000
0.5-330
1.2*-1 7,000
3.0
0.6-1,000
28
0.6-3,600*
1.4
1.2
2-16
3-19
1-180
2-40
1
1-2
1
Average
Concentration
(ug/L)(2>
47
13
4.2
1
2
0.72
1.1
4,500
1,200
3,900
31
720
2.9
84
2.8
150
0.68
0.64
5.1
5.5
11
6.3
1
2
1
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS-GROUNDWATER
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PAGE TWO
Analyte
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
Isophorone
Dieldrin
delta-BHC
No. of Positive
Detections/No .
of Samples ( J
1/5
2/50
5/50
3/50_
2/50
Range of
Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
2.4
2-3
1-14
0.016-0.029
0.0079-0.027
Average
Concent rat ion
(ug/L)<2)
0.88
3
5.1
0.029
0.025
(1)

(2)
Arithmetic average of duplicate sample results, calculated using one-
half the detection limit for nondetects.

Number of samples does not count samples in which an analyte was
rejected during validation.

Arithmetic average calculated using one-half the contract-required
detection limit for nondetects, or maximum if average exceeds maximum
detected.
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS-GROUNDWATER
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Anatyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
No. of Positive
Oetections/No.of
Samples'1'
Dissolved
20/35
7/41
1/50
43/48
2/50
3/41
50/50
4/30
9/50
3/35
25/30
6/49
50/50
31/39
0/50
3/45
45/45
3/43
5/39
49/49
0/39
1/41
6/27
Total
45/46
11/45
9/45
44/50
17/50
3/40
50/50
27/39
20/43
22/37
46/46
37/45
50/50
49/50
0/50
23/42
46/47
5/44
8/46
50/50
2/38
22/42
20/27 '
Range of
Positive Directions
(ug/L)
Dissolved
23.0-201
25.4-158
ZO
2.4-13,100
1.5
2.1-20.2
19,000-
778,000
8.5M9
2.0-16.4
32-43
7.7-44,700
1.1-27.8
6,280-
324,000
5.1«-4,520

7.5-33.6
467-19,700
2.2-Z5*
31-39
1,570-
494,000

4.2
13.5-51.1
Total
100-186,000
22^-193
ZO-6.9
2.4-1Z500
1.0-8.0
4.9-153
22,700*-
886,000
4.4-225
4.3-105
6.2-1,670
105-284,000
1.7-835
6,640-
712,000
5.0-7,150

5.3-294
847-36^00
1.0-10
3.1-38
U30-
520,000
1.0
4.2-236
13.2-8,710
Average
Concentration
(ug/L)w
Dissolved
81.2
37.8
2.0
620
1.5
3.0
126,000
6.0
16.4
14.9
3,080
3.3
65,400
278

19.8
1,730
Z5
8.8
58,700

42
14.8
Total
21,200
43.8
4.7
694
2.7
3.2
215,000
36.9
293
145
36,600
50.8
101,000
1,010

51.7
5,100
2.8
8.4
59300
1.0
41.8
679
(1)
Arithmetic average or duplicate sample results calculated using one-hall me detec uon limit tor
nondetects.
Number of samples does not count samples in which an analyte was rejected during validation.
Arithmetic average calculated using one-half the contract-requred detection limit for nondetects,
or maTimmn if average exceeds maximum detected.
-------
TABLE 4
RESIDENTIAL WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ROUNDS ] AND 2Ha(/L)
MW MANUFACTURING STTE
MONTOUR COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PACE 2
Aulytt

TridfeMha.
cb-U-OkUomtlinH
Vbrldto*
1,1^-TrtcUonttlm
•omit
Ahmbttm
Mom
Crddtn
Copptr
In*
LMd
HUpBjhm
Mntraoc
NUd
MOTtua
SDnr
Sotai
TMBBB
Zhe
RW33
Roondl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
63
ND
ND
10.0
ND
ND
20,500
ND
NO
ROOT) J
ND
ND
ND
0.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
49.5
ND
313
ND
ND
ND
640
ND
236,000
ND
ND
RW34
Romdl
ND
8.7
23
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
74.MO
ND
ND
ND
30.700
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.710
ND
ND
Romi2
9.0
62
16
ND
1.1
ND
ND
39.6
80,700
7SJ
166
ND
32,900
ND
ND
672
ND
101200
ND
624
RW3S
Roondl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
124,000
ND
511
ND
43.500
ND
ND
ND
ND
92.400
ND
ND
Round 2
1.0
0.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
97.7
126,000
ND
119
ND
45300
ND
ND
1,000
NO
*uoo
ND
ND
RW36
Romdl
6
1.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
75.5
85300
ND
ND
7.1
29.900
20.4
ND
1310
ND
22300
ND
394
R«md2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
80.7
92JOO
ND
IU
JJ
31300
173
ND
1*40
ND
23,600
ND
ND
Rvn/
Round 1
ND
ND
ND
t.l
ND
03
ND
8S.I
91300
86.4
301
&5
14.6OO
254)
ND
1.250
ND
30,400
ND
132
Roon)J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MJOO
1,070
299
310
12300
22J>
ND
2/00
35
25^100
ND
61.0
AMI
Romdl
340
520
15
ND
4
ND
499
984
6S300
ND
630
IJ
23,200
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.820
ND
ND
«OOBd2
419
792
4.4
ND
84
ND
990
115
65.600
ND
IJ40
8.0
24,400
22J
ND
2350
ND
6,920
ND
ND
• Avera|e of 2 reported nhwi
ND NotDvteeted
-------
TABLE 4
RESIDENTIAL WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ROUNDS 1 AND JXnyU
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Anrirv
TMnchloracfkn*
Tlfckkmxlne
ciM.10khloTOd.cnt
Vhgrl ckkxVk
1.14-TricMomtknc
tan.
Ahmbram
hritm
Cfekfam
Copper
Iroo
Lad
kUtnafaa
MMtnm
NkW
PoMhmi
SOnr
SodhB
Tfcdhn
Ztat
RW01
Round I
HD
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
60.400
ND
ND
ND
8.420
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Round 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
47*
64.600
8.4
46.2
I.S
10,100
ND
ND
III
ND
WW>
ND
ND
RW03
Roandl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
99.500
ND
ND
11.6
37400
19.4
ND
ND
ND
31.300
ND
ND
Round J
1.4
0.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
99.1
111.000
193
194
5.8
41.500
38.1
ND
961
ND
37,100
ND
ND
RWOS
Roandl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
85,5
118,000
ND
ND
6U
19,900
145
ND
10JOO
ND
34JOO
ND
ND
RoandJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
974
139,000
11.7
330
ND
23,200
137
ND
11,700
ND
41,900
13
ND
RW24
Roaodl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29,700*
ND
ND
».9*
17.900*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Road]
Nil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
S6J
32,700
U
m
m
20JOO
ND
ND
4(7
ND
1,120
ND
ND
RWM
Roandl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
73,700
ND
ND
ND
25£00
ND
ND
ND
ND
17^00
ND
ND
Roa»)J
0.5
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
44.9
•4.400
I4JO
21J
ND
28.800
ND
ND
614
ND
natn
ND
ND
RW31
Roandl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
38,800
ND
ND
ND
8,940
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.800
ND
ND
Road 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
64J
41^00
19JO
21JO
ND
9.MO
19.7
ND
ijoao
ND
14.600
ND
ND
RWJ2
RaiBll
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
48,700
ND
ND
ND
16JOO
ND
ND
ND
ND
*090
ND
ND
Ro««f2
ND
HD
ND
ND
m
ND
ND
2SJ)
54.400
28.9
30.1
1.9
20,600
ND
ND
708
ND
5.490
ND
ND
NotDrttcMl
-------
TABLES

SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SURFACE WATER
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
(Total)
l.U-
Trichloroethane
Phenol
Mauses Creek
No. of
Positive
Detections/
No. of
Samples
3/5
3/5
3/5
3/5
2/5
Range of
Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
72 - 130*
22-38*
23-43
2-3*
1-2
Average
Cone.
(ug/L)(1)
66
21
23
3
2
Wetland
No. of
Positive
Detections/
No. of
Samples
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
Range of
Positive
Detections
("g/L)
1,100-
2,400
100-500
26-240
16-72

Average
Cone.
(ug/L)(1>
1,800
240
100
36

* Arithmetic average of results reported for duplicate samples.
(1) Calculated using one-half the contract-required detection limit for nondetects, or maximum
if average exceeds maximum.
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS-SURFACE WATER
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Ma uses Creek
Total Metals
No. of
Positive
Detections/
No. of
Samples
5/5
0/5
S/S
S/S
0/S
S/S
0/5
5/5
S/S
5/5
0/5
S/5
4/5
0/5
0/S
Range of
Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
89.6-168*

37.8:47.2
27,000-42,200

240-403*

7,720-12,800
30.3-51.7*
1,620-1,830

9,610-17,400
1.0

Average
Concentration

24.0
12.6
74.7
83,500

3.9
26,200
123
1,190
2.0
22,700
1.0

27.2
* Arithmetic average of results reported for duplicate samples
(1) Arithmetic average calculated using one-half the contract required detection limit for nondetects, or maximum if
average exceeds maximum
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS-SEDIMENT
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethcnc
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)nuoranthene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)peiylene
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Chiysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Mauses Creek
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
2/5
2/5
2/5
1/5
2/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
2/5
5/5
1/5
3/5
Range of Positive
Detections
(ug/kg)
53* -240
13* -46
5»-43
49
150 - 160
130-480
190 - 1,000
81 - 1,000
66-350
110 - 470
120-510
67* - 87
310 - 1,100
55*
75-340
Average
Concentration
(tig/kg)'1'
60
13
11
49
160
290
580
560
200
280
310
87
650
55
200
Wetland
No.of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
3/5
2/5
4/5
0/5
1/5
1/5
25
2/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
0/5
3/5
0/5
0/5
Range of Positive
Detection
(ug/kg) ,
3-60
9-16
7-65

42
250
100-580
100-580
160
250
250

110 - 690

Average
Concentration
(ug/kg)(1)
19
7
28

42
180
240
240
160
180
180

310

-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS-SEDIMENT
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Araenk
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sdenlum
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Mama Creek
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
5/5
5/S
5/5
5/5
S/S
5/S
5/5
S/S
5/5
5/5
5/S
S/5
5/5
S/S
0/5
S/S
S/5
1/S
S/S
0/3
S/S
5/5
Range of Positive
Detections
(mg/kg)
10,900-13,900
9.5-17.1
5.1-12.4
78.2-128
0.96-1. 1
1.1-1.4
1,480-4,870*
18.2-24.7
12.7-20.1
20.2-32.2
39,300-47,300
17.3«-2S.7
2,970-3,840
588-1,160

33.3-44.5
638-975
0.61
78.0-125

22.2 - 2S.O
83.9-103
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)("
12,500
13.7
8.3
93.7
1.1
1.2
3,080
22.1
17.1
26.2
43,600
22.3
3,380
841

37.4
826
0.52
98.S

23.2
94.6
Wetland
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
S/S
3/S
4/S
S/S
4/5
3/5
S/S
5/5
S/S
S/5
S/S
VS
S/S
5/5
1/5
S/S
5/S
0/5
S/S
1/1
S/S
5/S
Range of Positive
Detections
(mg/kg)
7,860-12,600
2.8-6.0
3.4-6.8
74.2-197
0.64-1.1
0.63-3.4
1,870-20,200
7.1-15.1
10.0-14.2
17.6-3,250
23,800-31,500
11.6-285
2,180-7,150
190-3,120
1.8
19.8-31.4
531-1,200

123-1,190
0.49
11.5-19.3
56.7-651
Average
Concentration
(rag/kg)0'
11,100
13
4.8
114
0.73
1.6
11,600
13
11.7
1,050
27,100
93.9
4,010
1,020
0.44
25.7
836

439
0.49
17.0
347
• Arithmetic average of results reported for duplicate samples.
"Calculated using one-half the contracl-rcquircd detection limit for nondetects, or maximum of average exceeds maximum.
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF TCLP EXTRACTION RESULTS-SEDIMENT(ug/L)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
4-Methylphenol
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
Mauses Creek
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
1/5
2/5
2/S
1/5
2/5
0/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
3/5
1/5
3/5
4/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
Range of Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
29
5-21
31-34
19
8-26

17
9
15
5
12
168-243
11.8
582-862
1.1-1.2
3.2-4.4
90,900-300,000
4.0-130
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
SD05
SD03
SD03
SD03
SD03

SD01
SD01
SD04
SD01
SD02
SD03
SD05
SD01
SD04
SD02
SD01
SD01
Wetland
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
4/5
1/5
4/5
2/5
5/5
1/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
05
2/5
4/5
4/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
Range of Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
27-100
85
4-9
3-7
5-110
27

675
11.2-11.6
587-932
1.1 - 3.0
4.0-33.5
45,800-1,900,000
4.7-77.2
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
SD09
SD06
SD08
SD08
SD08
SD08

SD06
SD09
SD06
SD06
SD07
SD10
SD06
Regulatory
Level for Toxic
Waste
(ug/L)(1)
NR
100,000
700
500
NR
200
NR
500
NR
500
200,000
NR
5,000
100,000
NR
1,000
NR
NR
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF TCLP EXTRACTION RESULTS - SEDIMENT (ug/L)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Analyle
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Managanese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Mauses Creek
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
0/5
0/5
5/5
5/5
0/5
5/5
0/5
0/5
Range of Positive
Detections
(ug/L)

7,910-15,300
2,290-11,200

30.3-62.6

Location of
Maximum
Concentration

SD01
SD01

SD02

Wetland
No. of Positive
Detections/No.
of Samples
3/5
2/5
5/5
S/S
1/5
5/5
1/5
3/5
Range of Positive
Detections
(ug/L)
59.6-11,200
62,900-85,700
6,900-28,700
1,980-8,030
0.21
11.2-55.2
4.2
1,450-4,850
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
SD07
SD06
SD09
SD06
SD08
SD07
SD06
SD07
Regulatory
Level for Toxic
Waste
(ug/L)(1>
NR
NR
NR
NR
200
NR
5,000
NR
(1) EPA, March 29, 1990
NR - Not regulated
-------
TABLE 10
HAZARD QUOTIENTS - RESIDENTIAL WELLS (ADULTS) (1>
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyle
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichlorocthene
Vinyl chloride
1,1,2-TrichIorocihane
Benzene
. Barium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Total (Hazard Index)
RWOl
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.6 x Iff2
5.8 x 10°
2.9 x Iff2
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.1 x Iff2
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
RW03
Ingesiion/
Dermal
6.3xlff<
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4 x Iff1
3.4 x 10 J
5.8 x Iff2
2.7 x Iff1
ND
ND
ND
7.9 x 10 l
RW05
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.4 x Iff*
5.6 x Iff2
1.4x10°
9.2 x Iff2
ND
5.1 x 10'
ND
2.0 x 10"
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
_
RW24
Ingesiion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.1 x Iff2
3.8 x Iff3
2.4 x Iff1
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.8 x 10'
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
RW28
Ingestion/
Dermal
1.4 x Iff'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5 x Iff2
9.6 x Iff1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6 x Iff2
Inhalation
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
RW31
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.5 x Iff2
1.3 x Iff2
ND
5.4 x Iff3
ND
ND
ND
5.4 x Iff*
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
-
-------
TABLE 11
HAZARD QUOTIENTS - RESIDENTIAL WELLS(CHILDREN)(1)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Tetrachloroethene
Trlchloroethene
cb-U-Dfchloroelhene
Vinyl chloride
l,U-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Barium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Tout (Hazard lnde>)
RW01
IngeMkxi/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.1 1 10'2
13 X Iff1
6.9 x Iff2
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4X10"1
RW03
IngeMkxi/
Dermal
2.6 I 10"3
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.8 X Iff2
1.4 x Iff2
14 1 Iflr'
1.1 X Iff2
ND
ND
ND
33x10-'
RW05
Ingettion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ox Iff1
13 x Iff1
3.1 x Vf
2.2 x 10-1
ND
1.2x10°
ND
4.8 x 10*
RW24
IngeMkxi/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
73 x Iff2
9.0 x Iff1
5.7 x Iff1
ND
ND
ND
ND
6J x Iff1
RW28
IngeMkxi/
Dermal
3.2 1 Iff5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7 x Iff2
12 x Iff2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.3 x Iff2
RW31
IngeMta/
Derail
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RJllff2
3.0 x Iff1
ND
13 x Iff2
ND
ND
ND
13 x Iff1
RW32
IngeMkxi/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
J.2xlff2
4.4 1 Iff2
8.7 x Iff2
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7 x Iff1
RW33
Ingealloo/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
7.9 x Iff2
1.4x10°
ND
ND
ND
ND
1-5x10°
AB01
IngeMloo/
Dermal
17x10*
NA
9.«xlff2
ND
1.4 X Iff1
ND
1 J x Iff1
ND
3.7 x Iff1
1.4 x Iff2
ND
ND
ND
3.4x10°
ND Not delected.
NA No Reference Doae available for this chemical and/or exposure route.
01 Calculations provided in Appendix O.
-------
TABLE 12
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISKS - RESIDENTIAL WELLS (ADULTS)'"
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Analyte
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane
Benzene
Barium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Total Risk
RW01
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
RW03
Ingestion/
Dermal
1.2 x 1O7
3.9 x 10*
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
1.5 x 1O7
RW05
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
-
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
-
RW24
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
RW28
Ingestion/
Dermal
3.0 x 107
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.0 xl(T7
Inhalation
3.5 x 10*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.5 x 10*
RW31
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
-
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
-
-------
TABLE 12
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISKS - RESIDENTIAL WELLS(ADULTS)("
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Analyte
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
NDds-l,2-Dichloroelhene
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Barium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Tout Risk
RW32
Ingest ion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
RW33
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
13 x 10s
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
13 x iff5
Inhalation
ND
ND
ND
9.8 x Iff7
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.8 x Iff7
RW34
Ingestion/
Dermal
1.6 x 10*
2.4x10*
NA
ND
2.2 x 107
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
4.2 x 10*
RW3S
Ingestion/
Dermal
1.8 x 1O7
23x10*
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0 xlff7
RW36
Ingestion/
Dermal
Z5 x Iff7
1.3 x 10*
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
16 x Iff7
RW37
Ingestion/
Dermal
ND
ND
ND
7.4 x 10*
ND
3.1 x 10*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
7.4 x Iff*
AB01
Ingestion/
Dermal
2.5 x Iff1
1.0 x Iff4
NA
ND
5.7 x 10*
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
3.6 x Iff4
Inhalation
2.9x10*
5.7 x Iff'
NA
ND
1.6 x Iff*
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
6.1 x Iff5
ND Not detected.
NA No Cancer Slpe Factor available for this chemical and/or exposure route.
<') Calculations provided in Appendix G.
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF RISKS BY MEDIA
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Media
Groundwater
Surface Water-
Mauses Creek
Sediment-
Mauses Creek
Sediment-Wetland
Fish Ingestion
Total
Adult
Residents
Hazard
Index
3.4x10'
NA
NA
NA
3.1 x 101
3.4 x 101
Cancer
Risk
S.OxlO-2
NA
NA
NA
1.3 x 10-5
3.0 x 10-2
Child Residents
(0 - 6 yrs)
Hazard
Index
7.6 x 10'
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6 x 101
Adolescents
(8 - 16 yrs)
Hazard
Index
NA
7.3 x 10-3
1.2 x 10-2
3.9 x ia2
NA
5.8 x Iff2
Cancer
Risk
NA
2.2 x ID"7
8.0 x Iff7
4.4 x Iff7
NA
1.5 x 10^
NA Not applicable; exposure route not evaluated.
-------
TABIE 13
SUMMARY OH RISKS-POTENTIAL DOMESTIC USE OF GHOUNDWATER-ADULTS'"
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Chemical of
Concern
4-Melhytphenol
2,4-Dimelhylphenol
Carbon disulfide
Isophorone
Antimony
Arsenic
llarium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOTAL
RME
Concentration
(mg/L)

0.013
0.0066
0.36
0005
0.02S
0.0017
0.80
0.0013
0.0018
0.024
0.013
0.11
0.054
1.0
0.032
0.0026
0.0029
0.001
0.020
0.44

Estimated Intake
tngestion/
Dermal
3.6 i 10*4
1.8i 10*
9.9 i 10'3
1.4 i 10 '*
6.9 » Iff4
4.7 * 10'5
2.2 I 10 2
3.6 » 10s
4.9 « Iff5
6.6 x 10"4
3.6 i 10-4
3.0 i 10'3
1.5 « 10'3
2.7 » 10 2
8.8 I 10"1
7.1 x Iff5
8.0 x IO'5
2.7 I Iff5
5.5 I 10*
1.2 « IO2

Inhalation
9.4 x 10'7
S.5 i 10*
4.4 I IO3
1.45 1 10*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Reference Dose
(ing/kg/day)
Ingotion/
Dermal
5 i Iff*
2 x 10 J
1 x 10 '
2 i Iff1
4 x Iff4
1 x Iff3
5 x Iff2
5 x IO3
5 i IO4
1 I 10°
8 i Iff2
4 I Iff2
1.4xl03
1 x Iff1
2 x Iff2
S x IO2
3 i IO'3
7 I Iff5
7 I 10*
2 x Iff1

Inhalation

3 x 10'3

1 I IO4

6 x Iff7

4.3 I 10^
1 x 10'4

Cancer Slope Factor
(mg/kg/day) '
Ingestion/
Dermal

4.1 x 10'3

4.3 i 10°

Inhalation

Sx IO1

8.4 I 10°
6.1 x 10°

8.4 x Iff1

Hazard Quotient
Ingestion/
Dermal
7.1 i \0*
9.1 x 10s
9.9 x 10'a
6.9 x 10-*
1.7x10°
4.7 x Iff2
4.4 I Iff1
7.1 x 10'3
9.9 x 10'a
6.6 x Iff4
4.5 x 10s
7.S x 10a
1.1x10°
2.7 x Iff1
4.4 x IO2
1.4 x Iff*
2.7 x IO2
3.9 x Iff1
7.8 x IO2
6.0 x 10 2
3.3 i IO1
Inhalation

1.5 i 10°

l.S x 10°
Incremental Cancer Risk
Ingestion/
Dermal

2.4 x 10'7

6.6 x Iff5

2.7 X 10 2
Inhalation

2.8 x IO3
'"
(UlloiUilions provided in Apprndi« G.
m I.I'A. J.iiui.ny 1991 .-Mid II1IS cm line.
'•" ICF • Clement Associates. April 1, 1988
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OR RISKS-POTENTIAL
DOMESTIC USE OF GROUNDWATER-ADULTS
MWMANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Chemical of Concern
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes(lolal)
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroeihene
1 ,2-Dichloroelhene(lotal)
1,1-Dichloroelhene
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Bi»(2-eihylhexyl)phlhalate
Di-n-octylphlhalale
Di-n -butyl phlha late
Naphthalene
Phenol
2-Melhyl phenol
RME
Concentrion
(ng/L)
0.22
0.19
0.060
0.001
0.002
0.20
5.3
1.5
4.2
0.17
1.0
0.028
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.0065
00056
Eitimated Intake
(mg/kg/day
Injotion/
Dermal
6.0ilO'J
5.2 x 10"'
1.6 1 Iff3
2.7 x 10 3
5.5 x 10s
5.5 x 10"'
1.5 x Iff1
4.1 i 10"2
1.2 x 10 '
4.7 x Iff3
2.7 x Iff2
7.7 x 10*
2.7 x Iff'
2.7 x 10 5
2.7 x Iff5
2.1 x Iff5
I.8xl07
1.2 1 10"*
Inhalation
4.9 x Iff4
2.2 M 10"J
6.7 x 10*
1.1 1 Iff5
2.1 x 105
1.6 1 10 '
4.8 x 10 '
1.5 x Iff2
4.7 x 10'2
1.9 x Iff'
1.3xl02
3.0 1 Iff1
8.9x10'
4.7 I Iff7
2.0 x 10'*
2.1 X Iff5
1.8 1 Iff7
1.2x 10-*
Reference Dose <*>
(mg/kg/day)
Ingolion
Dermal
IxlO1

2 1 MT1
1 x 10 '
2x10°
4 x 103
1 x Iff2

1 x 10 2(cis)
9 x 10 3

6xl02
2 i Iff2
2 x 10-2
1 x 10 '
4 I 10°
6x Iff'
5 I Iff2
Inhalation

6xlff'
3 x Iff1
9xlff2

9xlff'

Cancer Slope Factor<2)<3)
(mg/kg/day)-1
Ingot ion/
Dermal

2.9 x Iff2

5.7 I Iff2
5.1 x Iff2
1.1 I Iff2

6 x 10 '
1.9 x 10°
7 J x Iff3
1.4 1 10'2

Inhalation

2.9 x Iff1

5.7 x Iff2
1.8 x 103
1.7 x Iff2

1.2 x 10*
2.9 xlff1
1.6 1 Iff3

Hazard Quotient
Ingestkm/
Dermal
6.0 x 10 !

8.2 x Iff3
2.7 x 10*
2.7 x Iff5
1.4x10°
1.5 x 101

1.2x10*
5.2 x Iff1

UxlO1
1.4 x Iff3
1.4 x 103
5.5 1 10*
2.1 1 102
3.0 x 10*
3.1 x Iff3
Inhalation

1.1 x 10°
3.5 1 105
2.4 x 10*

3.4 x 10*

Incremental Cancer Risk
Ingralion/
Dermal

6.5 1 Iff5

1.3 x 10*
3.2 x Iff3
l.9x 10*

1.2 1 Iff3
1.2 1 Iff2
15 x 10*
1.6 1 10 '

Inhalation

2.8 x 10 '

3.9 x Iff5
3.7 x Iff*
1.1 x 10*

9.9 x 10*
1.6xl03
2.1 x Iff7

-------
TABLE 13a
EXPOSURE INPUT PARAMETERS-GROUNDWATER
(FUTURE AND CURRENT RESIDENTIAL USE)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Ingestion of Groundwater
Input
Parameter
C
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT
Description
Exposure
Concentration
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time
Value
RME concentration'0
(mg/L) or maximum®
Adult 2L/day
Child: IL/day
350 days/year
Adult: 30 years
Child: 6 years
Adult: 70 kg
Child: 15 kg
ED x 365 days/yr
70 years x 365 days^r
Rationale
Upper 95% confidence limit on
arithmetic average (EPA,
December 1989)
Convention(EPA, December
1989)
Convention (EPA,March 25,1991)
90th percentile time at one
residence (EPA, December 1989)
Convention(EPA, December 1989;
March 25, 1991)
Noncarcinogens
carcinogens
(EPA, December 1989)
-------
TABLE 13C
EXPOSURE INPUT PARAMETERS-GROUNDWATER
(FUTURE AND CURRENT RESIDENTIAL USE)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE THREE
Inhalation of Volatile Emissions During Showering (Adults Only)
Input
Parameter
C
H
Kg.K,
D.
D,
R.
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT
Description
Exposure
Concentration
Henry's Law
Constant
Gas and Liquid
Phase Mass Transfer
Coefficients
Shower Duration
Total Time in
Bathroom
Air Exchange Rate
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time
Value
RME concentration <1)
(mg/L)
Contaminant-specific
Contaminant-specific
12 min
20 min
0.0083 min-1
14 L/min
0.96 day-1 (350
days/yr)
30 years
70kg
ED x 365 days/yr
70 years x 365
days/yr
Rationale
Used to calculate volatile
chemical generation rate
(ug/m3/min)
Required for model application.
Required for model application.
EPA, December 1 989.
Professional judgment.
Foster and Chrostowski, 1 987.
EPA, December 1 989.
One shower per day (EPA,
March 25, 1991).
90th percentile time at one
residence (EPA, December
1989).
Convention (EPA, December
1989).
Noncarcinogens
Carcinogens
(EPA, December 1 989)
<1> Upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) on arithmetic average, or maximum if UCL exceeds
maximum.
B Maximum concentration in 2 rounds of sampling for residential wells.
-------
ABLE TABLE 13b
EXPOSURE INPUT PARAMETERS-GROUNDWATER
(FUTURE AND CURRENT RESIDENTIAL USE)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MIONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER
Input
Parameter
C
SA
PC
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Description
Exposure
Concentration
Skin Surface Area
Available for
Contact
Dermal
Permeability
Constant
Exposure Time
Exposure frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time
Value
RME concentration0'
(mg/L)or maximum ®
Adult: 19,400 cmVday
Child: 7,280 cmVday
0.0008 cm/hr
0.2 hr/day
350 days/yr
Adult: 30 years
Child: 6 years
Adult: 70 kg
Child: 15 kg
ED x 365 days/yr
70 years x 365 days/yr
Rationale
Upper 95% confidence limit on
arithmetic average (EPA,
December).
50th percentile (EPA, December
1989).
Assumes contaminants are in
dissolved phase and flux
controlled by permeation of water
(EPA, April, 1988).
12 minutes/day (EPA,
December 1989).
Shower/bath every day (EPA,
March 25, 1991).
EPA, March 25, 1991.
Convention (EPA, December 1989;
March 25, 1991).
Noncartinogens
Carcinogens
(EPA, December 1989)
-------
TABLE 14
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
MW MANFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Contaminants That Are Known or
Probable Carcinogens*
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo (b) anthracene
Benzo (k) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Carbazole
Aldrin
Dieldrin
gamma -BHC
4, 4 '-DDT
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Kept ach lor epoxide
Arsenic
Beryllium
B2
B2
B2
C
A
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
Noncarcinogenic
Contaminants
Di-n-octyl phthalate
F luor anthene
2 -Methy Iphenol
4 -Methy Iphenol
2 , 4 -Dime thy Iphenol
Carbon disulfide
Endosulfan
Manganese
Selenium
Thallium
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
cis-l , 2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Anthracene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Phenol
Endrin
Antimony
Barium
Chromium (III)
Copper
-------
TABLE 15
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP ACTION LEVELS(ug/L)
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
MONTOUR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Chemical

NdftSer

Background
Scenario'1*

Maximum
Contaminant
Level

Site
Represent-
ative
Concen-
tration<3)
VOLATILES
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane*
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethene
cia-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Carbon disulfide
67-64-1
71-43-2
108-88-3
100-41-4
1330-20-7
79-34-5
79-00-5
71-55-6
107-06-2
127-84-4
79-01-6
75-35-4
156-60-5
156-60-5
75-01-4
75-09-2
75-15-0
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
NA<2>
5
1,000
700
10,000
5
5
200
5
5
5
7
70
100
2
5
NA
220
190
60
1
2
200
200
ND<5>
4,200
5,300
1,500
170
4,200
(4)
1,000
28
360
METALS
Antimony
Chromium (III)
Copper
Lead
Zinc

MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
10/5
100
1,300
15
NA
25
24
110
54
440
(1> Method Detection Limits based on EPA Approved low level drinking water
analysis.
(2)NA - Not available.
(3)Based on the upper 95 percent confidence limit.
^1,2-Dichloroethene evaluated as the more toxic, more prevalent cis isomer.
<5)ND - Not detected in groundwater.
-------
TABLE 16
ALTERNATIVE 3 - COST SUMMARY TABLE
Capital Cost
$13,234,181
O&M Costs
$1 , 568 , 427 (annually)
$20, 000 (every 5 years)
Present-Worth
Costs
$37,402,000
-------
SCALE IN
BASE MAP 8 A PORTION Of THC U.SOS. RWHWIOC, PA OUAORANOLE{73 MINUTE SERIES, 1969, PMOTOREViSED 1975) ANO
THE DANVILLE, PA QUADRANGLE (7.9 MMUTE SERIES, 1969, PMOTOREVISEO 1977). CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
FIGURE I
LOCATION MAP
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
«*£ A& HALLIBURTON NUS
. MONTOUR CO..PAmggy $mrirtm.m*ntnl Corporation
-------
MCDONALD'S '\
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION

STORAGE YARD
^: RAILROAD
MW MANUFACTURING SITE
FIGUfiEA
GENERAL SITE ARRANGEMENT
MW MANUFACTURING SITE, MONTOUR CO.. PA SSii
-------
CON1QUWS

ItCK MFtMCl)
PQTENT1OUFTRIC SL)RFACF MAP - JULY 23, 1?91
1891 HI
UANUf ACTURING SITt UQNTQU^ CQ PA
< rcci
,f~«».7s EiGUSt 3

*• '^ MALLIBURTQN NUS
J
T3>%r i
-------
SCAU M HIT
HALLIBURTON
Envtrmmenloi Curpoutwn
-------
wolf mjuauis xiiin ia SAUPU LOCATIONS

«u MUUHtttO LOCAHONS

• SAUPU LOCAIICMS (IMI)

I? uisnxc sn
-------
HALLIBURTON NUS
fnvtnmmentol Ccrporoium
-------
TO UUN1OPA1 IDATFR SUPPLY

SITF unMrrvia rniNTY PA
FIGURE 7
mzr
HALLIBURTON NUS
Erunnmmtntal Corpomvm
-------
VVM BM
N
ALTERNATIVE 3 (GftQUNDWATER EXTRACTION AREATUCNT All SCHARKE)
p«r UAMUf AC1UBIMC gTF unMTOUR CQttfiTY P*
SCMC w mi
HALLIBURTON MUS
-------
GRQUNDWAIER TREATMENT

UW UAMllFACIURIMC SITE. UQNTOUR COUNTY. PA
FIGURE 9
HALLIBURTON NtiS
Environmental Corporation
-------
CHQUNDWATER
ir UCNTOUR cnutnv
HALLIBURTON Nl'S
-------
ALTERNATIVE 4
CROUNOWATER TREATMENT
W UAMIJFAriLMING SITE. UQNTQUR COUNTY PA
FIGURE //
HALLIBURTON NUS
Enuvmmmtal Corporoiwn
-------
v<
V
\

.-> —^
LEGEND

HI * SITE FENCE

PROPERTY LINE
PLANT
.R CO.. PA
100 200

"SCAlTlN FEET
FIGURE 12
.'^\ HALLIBURTON NUS

Knvirnnmtinlal ('
-------
GLOSSARY
Administrative Record: An official compilation of documents, data, reports, and other information that is
considered important to the status of and decisions made relative to a Superfund Site. The public has
access to this material.

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): The Federal and state requirements
that a selected remedy must attain. These requirements may vary among sites and alternatives.

Aquifer A zone below the surface of the earth capable of producing water, as from a well

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund; A
Federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
The Act created a trust fund, known as Superfund, to investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites.

Fractured Bedrock: Breaks in underground rock formations caused by intense folding or faulting.

Groundwaten Water found beneath the earth's surface in geologic formations that are fully saturated.
When it occurs in sufficient quantity, groundwater can be used as a water supply.

Halogenated Aliphatics: Group of chemicals with an open chain structure containing chlorine or other
halogen(s) (e.g., bromine or fluorine).

Hazard Index: A value used to evaluate the potential for noncarcinogenic effects that occur in humans.

National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES): Federal or state regulations that pertain
to the discharge to surface waters.

National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the nation's top priority hazardous waste sites that are
eligible to receive Federal money for response under Superfund.

Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL): Separate phase hydrocarbon liquids, such as chlorinated solvents,
petroleum fuels, coal tars, or wood preservative (creosote) wastes. May be either more dense or less dense
than water, and may be found in either a free phase or trapped in soil or rock.

Operable Unit (OU): A ponion of a Superfund Site that has been conceptually separated from the rest of
the site to allow for easier management

Phenols: Acidic compounds that are hydroxyl derivatives of aromatic (ring-structured) hydrocarbons.

Phthalate Esters: Plasticizing compounds formed by the reaction of phthalic acid and alcohol used to give
flexibility to polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Present Worth: A term used to indicate the discounting of sums to be received in the future to their
present value equivalent, or the amount which will accumulate to that sum if invested at prevailing interest
rates.

Record of Decision (ROD): A legal document that describes the final remedial actions selected for a
Superfund site, why the remedial actions were chosen and others not, how much they cost, and how the
public responded.
-------
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS): A two-pan study of a hazardous waste site that supports
the selection of a remedial action for a site. The first part, the RI, identifies the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The second part, the FS, identifies and evaluates alternatives for addressing the
contamination.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): A Federal statute which regulates the active
generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Organic liquids that readily evaporate under atmospheric
conditions. Example VOCs include vinyl chloride and trichloroethene (TCE).

Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) Best available technology is the technology which is
presently available and demonstrated to give best possible removal of contaminants. Further definition is
given in the RCRA Land Disposal Restriction regulation.
-------